Title: VIOLA BIRKLE V. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

VIOLA BIRKLE V. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2007 WY 9150 P.3d 187Case Number: 05-245Decided: 01/18/2007
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
VIOLA 
BIRKLE,

 
 
Appellant

(Respondent),

 
 
v.

 
 
STATE OFWYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY 
AND COMPENSATION DIVISION,

 
 
Appellee

(Petitioner).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofNatronaCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Harry G. 
Bondi of Harry G. Bondi Law Offices, P.C., Casper, Wyoming

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; 
Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristi M. Radosevich, 
Assistant Attorney General

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL,* KITE, BURKE, JJ.

 
 
GOLDEN, 
J., delivers the opinion of the Court; KITE, J., files a dissenting opinion, in 
which BURKE, J., joins.

 
 
* Chief Justice at time of expedited 
conference

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      The Wyoming 
Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) denied a claim for 
medical benefits submitted by Viola Birkle.  The Office of Administrative Hearings 
(OAH) entered an order reversing the Division and awarding Birkle benefits.  The Division sought review of the OAH 
order to the district court, which reversed the OAH on substantive grounds, 
agreeing with the Division that benefits should be denied.  Birkle appeals to this Court.  We find that the OAH never acquired 
jurisdiction to hear Birkle's contested case, and therefore its proceedings were 
a nullity; its order void.  This 
appeal is dismissed.

 
 
[¶2]      We initially must 
note that no party has raised the issue of jurisdiction, but it is always the 
duty of this Court to assure itself that it has jurisdiction to entertain an 
appeal.  Plymale v. Donnelly, 2006 WY 3, ¶ 4, 125 P.3d 1022, 1023 (Wyo. 2006); Paxton 
Resources, L.L.C. v. Brannaman, 2004 WY 93, ¶ 17, 95 P.3d 796, 802 (Wyo. 
2004).  We begin with the procedural 
background of this case when Birkle filed her claim for benefits.  The Division denied her claim on the 
grounds that her injuries were not compensable under Wyoming's Workers' 
Compensation Act because they were not sufficiently related to her employment.1  Birkle contested the denial and 
requested an administrative hearing.  
From this humble beginning comes the procedural morass we find before us 
today.

 
 
[¶3]      The Division 
referred the case to the Medical Commission.  Eventually, Birkle filed a motion before 
the Medical Commission entitled "Employee-Claimant's Motion For Determination of 
Legal Issue."  In the motion, Birkle 
notes that "[a]t the status conference held herein . . . counsel and presiding 
officer . . . determined that a legal issue exists."  Birkle requested "that the legal issue 
of whether or not medical bills and any temporary or permanent impairment or 
disability sustained as a result of such [automobile] accident are covered under 
Wyoming's Workers' Compensation Act be immediately determined prior to the 
contested case hearing scheduled for hearing herein on February 11, 2005." In 
her motion, Birkle suggested that either the Medical Commission determine the 
issue or refer the matter to the OAH. In response, the Medical Commission 
entered its "Order Transferring Issue to Office of Administrative 
Hearings."  Specifically, the 
Medical Commission ordered that

 
 
the 
issue of whether or not medical bills and any temporary or permanent impairment 
or disability sustained as a result of his [sic] accident are covered under the 
Wyoming Workers' Compensation Act, as referred to in the Employee-Claimant's Motion for Determination 
of Legal Issue dated October 21, 2004, and attached hereto, shall be 
referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings. 

 
 
[¶4]      The OAH accepted 
the referral and proceeded with the case under the same case caption as used by 
the Medical Commission.  Whatever 
record the Medical Commission may have had was not transferred to the OAH.  The OAH record (the record on appeal) 
lacks even the most basic documents, such as the injury report, final 
determination denying benefits by the Division, or request for review.  The hearing before the OAH was limited 
in scope to the "issue" referred to it by the Medical Commission and it decided 
the "issue" solely upon briefing by Birkle and the Division.  No evidentiary hearing was held nor was 
there any express stipulation as to any facts by the parties.  Ultimately, the OAH entered an order 
finding that Birkle's injuries at issue were covered under the Wyoming Workers' 
Compensation Act, and medical benefits should be awarded.  The same order also returned the case to 
the Division.  This is the order 
from which the Division sought review to the district court and is now the 
subject of the instant appeal before this Court. 

 
 
[¶5]      For purposes of 
this appeal, the procedural problem began when the Division referred the case to 
the Medical Commission.  The Medical 
Commission only has subject matter jurisdiction over medically contested 
cases.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-616(b)(iv) (LexisNexis 2005); Jacobs v. State ex rel.   Wyo. Med. Comm'n, 2005 WY 104, ¶ 10, 118 P.3d 441, 444 
(Wyo. 2005); French v. Amax Coal 
West, 960 P.2d 1023, 1027-28 (Wyo. 1998).  Generally speaking, a medically 
contested case is one in which the primary issue(s) requires the application of 
medical expertise.  The Medical 
Commission has no legal authority to decide issues of law.  Since the primary issue in Birkle's 
case, at least as it has reached this Court, clearly was not a medical issue but 
rather the legal issue of coverage, the Medical Commission had no authority to 
proceed with the case.

 
 
[¶6]      Fortunately, the 
Medical Commission recognized that the case involved a legal issue.  Unfortunately for everyone involved, the 
Medical Commission failed to take the next logical step  dismissing the case 
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and returning the case to the 
Division.  This Court has firmly 
stated that the Medical Commission is obligated to return a contested case to 
the Division for referral to the OAH when it determines that the case is not 
primarily a medically contested case.  
Jacobs, ¶ 10, 118 P.3d  at 
444.  "[U]pon recognition that the 
Medical Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case should be 
immediately returned to the Division for referral to the Office of 
Administrative Hearings."  French, 960 P.2d  at 
1030.

 
 
[¶7]      Inexplicably, the 
Medical Commission proceeded to directly refer the case to the OAH by its own 
order.  The OAH clearly relied upon 
the order from the Medical Commission referring the "issue" of coverage in 
assuming jurisdiction of the case.  
Indeed, the OAH order awarding benefits begins by stating that "[t]his 
matter came before the Office of Administrative Hearings (Office) upon the 
November 4, 2004 transfer of case from the Office of the Medical Commission for 
a determination of a legal issue."  
The assumption of jurisdiction over Birkle's contested case by the OAH 
under these circumstances was in error.

 
 
[¶8]      It follows that, 
since the OAH never legally obtained jurisdiction, its proceedings were a 
nullity.  This includes the final 
order finding Birkle entitled to medical benefits for her injuries at 
issue.  The OAH order was void, ab initio.  No order existed from which the Division 
could seek review, leaving the district court without jurisdiction to entertain 
the Division's petition for review.  
The district court's order reversing the OAH consequently also is 
void.  This Court has no appealable 
final order before it, leaving us with no option but to dismiss this 
appeal.

 
 
[¶9]      This is not a 
matter of elevating form over substance; it is a matter of statutory authority 
which this Court is not at liberty to ignore.  It is axiomatic that an agency only has 
the authority delegated to it by the legislature.  Diamond B Services, Inc. v. Rohde, 2005 
WY 130, ¶ 60, 120 P.3d 1031, 1048 (Wyo. 2005).  As we said in French, returning the case to the 
Division is the only option for the Medical Commission because, while the OAH 
has statutory authority to transfer an appropriate case to, or seek advice on a 
specific medical issue from, the Medical Commission, no corollary provision 
exists for the Medical Commission to refer a case or any part thereof to the 
OAH.  French, 960 P.2d  at 1030.  

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶10]   The OAH never acquired jurisdiction 
of Birkle's contested case.  As 
such, there is no valid OAH order to be subjected to judicial review.  The order of the district court is void, 
and this appeal is dismissed. 

 
 
J. Kite, 
dissenting, in which Burke, J., joins.

 
 
[¶11]  I would decide this case on the 
merits.  In my view, the majority 
places form over substance when it dismisses the appeal on the ground the OAH 
lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  
Subject matter jurisdiction is "the power to hear and determine cases of 
the general class to which the proceedings in question belong."  Diamond B Services, Inc. v. Rohde, 2005 
WY 130, ¶ 13, 120 P.3d 1031, 1038 (Wyo. 2005) (citations omitted).  Under Wyoming's statutory scheme, the OAH is the 
exclusive agency with the power to hear and determine legal issues in contested 
worker's compensation cases.  Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. §§ 27-14-602(a) and (b), 27-14-601(k)(v) and 27-14-614(b)(iv) 
(LexisNexis 2005).  Thus, upon 
referral of this contested case by the Division, the OAH was the only agency 
with the authority to decide the issue presented.  In my view, the fact that the Division 
mistakenly referred the case to the Medical Commission which then transferred 
the case to the OAH rather than returning it to the Division for referral to the 
OAH did not deprive the OAH of subject matter jurisdiction to decide the legal 
issue presented. 

 
 
[¶12]  In reaching this conclusion I 
acknowledge that, when read narrowly, § 27-14-616(b)(iv) (LexisNexis 2005) and 
French v. Amax Coal West, 960 P.2d 1023 (Wyo. 
1998) seem to support the result reached by the majority.  Jacobs v. State ex rel. Wyo.  Med. Comm'n, 2005 WY 104, 118 P.3d 441 (Wyo. 2005) would also seem to support the majority.  Section 27-14-616(b)(iv) provides:  "Following referral by the division, the 
hearing examiner or hearing panel shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide all 
issues related to the written notice of objection filed pursuant to W.S. 
27-14-601(k)."  In French, 960 P.2d  at 1030, we said:  ". . . upon recognition that the Medical 
Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case should be immediately 
returned to the Division for referral to the Office of Administrative 
Hearings."  In Jacobs, ¶ 10, 118 P.3d  at 444-45, we 
said:  "When the Medical Commission 
determined . . . there were no medically contested issues before it . . . the 
Medical Commission was obligated to return the case to the Division for referral 
to the Office of Administrative Hearings."   

 
 
[¶13] In 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-101 (LexisNexis 2005), the legislature expressed its 
intent that Wyoming's worker's compensation statutes are to be interpreted to 
assure the "quick and efficient" delivery of benefits to injured workers and 
that benefit claims cases are to be decided "on their merits."  Mindful of that intent, I would not read 
the relevant statutory provisions or our case law as narrowly as the majority 
does.  I do not believe § 27-14-616 
or French mandate dismissal of an 
appeal involving an exclusively legal issue because, upon an inadvertent 
referral by the Division, the Medical Commission transferred the matter directly 
to the OAH, which was the proper authority, for resolution rather than 
transferring it back to the Division for transfer to the OAH. 

 
 
[¶14]  I would interpret § 27-14-616 to mean 
upon referral by the Division jurisdiction is conferred upon the agency with the 
authority to decide the issue presented.  
If the Division inadvertently refers the case to the Medical Commission 
when it involves a legal issue, the Medical Commission "should," as we said in 
French, return it to the Division for 
referral to the OAH.  French did not go so far as to say the 
Medical Commission had no other option and referral to the OAH instead was 
impermissible. Moreover, both French 
and Jacobs were appeals from 
decisions rendered by the Medical Commission on contested legal rather than medical issues.  This Court's holding in those cases was 
that the Commission did not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the 
issues it had decided.  Rather, upon 
realizing the issues were purely legal, the Medical Commission was required to 
transfer the case.  The present case 
is distinguishable in that the Medical Commission did not decide issues it was 
without authority to decide.  

 
 
 [¶15]  Contrary to the legislature's intent, 
the majority's dismissal of this appeal will likely mean the case will return to 
the Medical Commission for transfer back to the Division where it will be 
referred to the OAH.  Upon a second 
order from the OAH, it will then be appealed a second time to this Court.  That does not constitute quick and 
efficient delivery of benefits.  I 
would decide the issue presented on its merits.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The record 
contains no evidence of the exact reason why the Division denied Birkle's claim, 
but the parties generally agree that the Division determined the injuries to be 
non-compensable.