Title: GREGORY A. POPICK V. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

GREGORY A. POPICK V. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2005 WY 110118 P.3d 993Case Number: No. 05-3Decided: 09/07/2005
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
GREGORY 
A. POPICK,

 
 
Appellant

(Petitioner),

 
 
v.

 
 
STATE OF 
WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING

WORKERS' 
SAFETY AND COMPENSATION

DIVISION,

 
 
Appellee

(Respondent).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The 
Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

 
 

            
Sean W. 
Scoggin of Tiedeken & Scoggin, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

 
 

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

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

 
 

            
VOIGT, Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      The district 
court affirmed a hearing examiner's denial of worker's compensation benefits for 
an asbestosis claim.  We dismiss 
this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      We find the 
dispositive issue to be whether the hearing examiner erred in determining that 
the appellant did not timely file a claim for benefits.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The appellant's 
work history includes numerous jobs in which he was possibly exposed to 
asbestos, including three brief jobs in Wyoming during 1978.  During the mid-1990s, the appellant 
began experiencing fatigue, shortness of breath and prolonged chest colds.  On October 30, 2001, he sought treatment 
for those symptoms.  Imaging studies 
revealed "bilateral lobular pleural thickening" and "calcification . . . as may 
be seen with asbestosis."  On 
November 1, 2001, a medical report informed the appellant of the need for a CT 
scan to confirm the asbestosis diagnosis, and a nurse practitioner, after asking 
the appellant about exposure to asbestos, told the appellant to "see a lung 
specialist."  The appellant went to 
a physician less than two weeks later for a radiographic examination.  On January 7, 2002, he had a high 
resolution CT scan done for the purpose of "looking for asbestosis in asbestos 
exposed person."  The findings were 
"consistent with asbestos exposure."

 
 
[¶4]      On September 26, 
2002, the appellant was seen at the National Jewish Medical Center in Denver, Colorado, where his chief complaint upon 
arrival was noted to be "self-referred" for "evaluation of possible 
asbestos-related disease," and his "major goals for this evaluation are to 
obtain a second opinion regarding his diagnosis."  The doctor's notes from that visit 
indicate "mild abnormalities with a mildly decreased diffusing capacity, likely 
due to [the appellant's] asbestosis."

 
 
[¶5]      On January 21, 
2003, the appellant filed three separate injury reports with the Wyoming 
Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division), claiming in each that his 
asbestosis was caused by his employment in Wyoming in 1978.  The Division issued three responsive 
final determination letters denying coverage on the following grounds:  (1) the lack of evidence establishing a 
work-related exposure to asbestos in Wyoming; (2) the failure to file a claim 
for benefits within one year after receiving a diagnosis or within three years 
from the date of last exposure; and (3) the failure to report the injuries to 
his employers and the Division in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-502 
(LexisNexis 2005), resulting in a presumption of claim 
denial.

 
 
[¶6]      The appellant 
objected to the final determinations and requested a hearing.  That hearing was held on February 18, 
2004.  Both parties submitted 
evidence.  On March 11, 2004, the 
hearing examiner entered an Order Denying Benefits containing the following 
paragraphs:

 
 
6.         
In the present case, [the appellant] certainly did not file his report of 
injury until well after three years from his final work-related exposure to 
asbestos.  However, this Office 
finds [the appellant] may still receive benefits if he filed a claim within one 
year of diagnosis of asbestosis.  
This Office finds [the appellant] was diagnosed as suffering from 
work-related asbestos exposure on November 1, 2001 when he was informed of the 
need for a CT scan to confirm the asbestosis diagnosis.  Certainly, by the time the January 7, 
2002 CT scan was performed, a reasonable person would have understood the nature 
of the injury and the relation to his prior employment.  [The appellant] did not file his report 
of injury until January 21, 2003, more than a year after a reasonable person 
would have known of the injury.  
Thus, this Office finds [the appellant] is barred by the one year statute 
of limitations contained in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-503 (Lexis[Nexis] 
2003).

 
 
            
7.         
Even if this Office found [the appellant] was not properly diagnosed 
until after the September 2002 examination, [the appellant] still has failed to 
file a claim for benefits within a year of the September 2002 diagnosis.  As of February 18, 2004, [the appellant] 
had never filed a claim for benefits with the Division.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-503(a) 
(Lexis[Nexis] 2003) specifically notes, "The injury report is not a claim for 
benefits" as it relates to the one-year statute of limitations on benefits.  [The appellant] did file his report of 
injury, but never filed a claim for benefits.  Therefore, any claim by [the appellant] 
is still barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 27-14-503 (Lexis[Nexis] 2003).

 
 
[¶7]      On March 31, 
2004, the appellant filed a petition in the district court seeking judicial 
review of the denial of his worker's compensation claims.  The petition alleged that the hearing 
examiner had acted arbitrarily and capriciously, had abused his discretion, and 
had not acted in accordance with law, and further alleged that the Order Denying 
Benefits was not supported by substantial evidence.  In his district court brief, the 
appellant treated the matter as solely an evidentiary question, and made no 
argument concerning the hearing examiner's conclusion in regard to the statute 
of limitations.  The State, to the 
contrary, focused upon the latter issue and urged the district court to affirm 
the hearing examiner "[on that] basis alone."

 
 
[¶8]      The district 
court reviewed the record and read the briefs of the parties and, without 
holding a hearing, entered an Order Affirming Denial of Benefits.  The district court first addressed the 
evidentiary issuewhether the appellant had proven by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he suffered work related injuries while employed in Wyomingand 
found against the appellant.  The 
district court concluded that the appellant's testimony was vague and 
inadequate, and that it was incongruent with the documentary evidence.  Next, the district court held that the 
statute of limitations had run in regard to the timely filing of a worker's 
compensation claim.  On November 10, 
2004, the district court entered its Order Affirming Denial of Benefits.  This appeal 
followed.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 

[¶9]      Our standard for 
the review of a contested case determination is well known and will not be 
repeated herein.  See Newman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' 
Safety and Compensation Div., 2002 WY 91, ¶¶ 7-26, 49 P.3d 163, 166-73 (Wyo. 
2002).

 
 
APPLICABLE 
STATUTES

 
 

[¶10]   Wyoming's statutory scheme requires both that 
an injured worker report the injury to his or her employer and the state, and 
file a claim for benefits with the state.  
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. §§ 27-14-502 and 27-14-503 (LexisNexis 2005).  Both requirements are subject to time 
limitations.  As to the second 
requirementthat of filing a claim for benefitswe have held that, in cases 
involving a latent disease such as asbestosis, the law in effect at the time the 
claimant becomes aware of his condition is the law that must be applied in 
determining  statute of limitations 
issues.  Wyoming Refining Co. v. Bottjen, 695 P.2d 647, 
648-49 (Wyo. 
1985).  In the instant case, the law in effect 
at the time the appellant became aware of his condition provided, in relevant 
part, as follows:

 
 
            
The right of compensation for an injury which occurs over a substantial 
period of time is barred unless a claim for benefits is filed within one (1) 
year after a diagnosis of injury is first communicated to the employee, or 
within three (3) years from the date of last injurious workplace exposure to the 
condition causing the injury, whichever occurs last . . ..

 
 

Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 27-14-503(b) (LexisNexis 2001).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶11]   
The district court affirmed the hearing examiner on the ground that a 
reasonable person would have understood the nature of his injury and its 
relation to his prior employment no later than January 7, 2002, meaning that the 
appellant's filing of the three injury reports on January 21, 2003, was beyond 
the period of limitations found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-503(b).  See Worker's Compensation Claim of Iverson 
v. Frost Const., 2003 WY 162, ¶ 15, 81 P.3d 190, 195 (Wyo. 2003) and Matter of Zielinske, 959 P.2d 706, 710 
(Wyo. 1998).  Having reviewed the record, we agree 
with that conclusion.  The medical 
records show that the appellant's self-referral to the National Jewish Medical 
Center in September 2002 was to obtain a second opinion concerning the diagnosis 
of asbestosis that he had already received.

 
 
[¶12]   Of even more significance to this 
discussion is the fact, pointed out by the hearing examiner in his Order Denying 
Benefits, but not relied upon by the district court, that the appellant filed 
three injury reports, but never filed a claim for benefits!  Inasmuch as an "injury report is not a 
claim for benefits," the period of limitations contained in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-503(b) cannot be computed from the date of filing of an injury 
report.  See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-503(a) (LexisNexis 
2005).  Clearly, the statutory 
period of limitations has passed no matter what date in the year 2002 is used to 
determine commencement of that period.

 
 

[¶13]   The filing of a timely claim for 
benefits is jurisdictional.  In re Summers, 987 P.2d 153, 156-57 
(Wyo. 1999); Seckman v. Wyo-Ben, Inc., 783 P.2d 161, 
167-68 (Wyo. 
1989).  Consequently, the petition for review 
should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, any other 
action being null and void.  EOG Resources, Inc. v. State, 2003 WY 
34, ¶ 10, 64 P.3d 757, 759 (Wyo. 2003) (quoting Weller v. Weller, 960 P.2d 493, 
496 (Wyo. 
1998)).  Furthermore, "[i]f a lower court acts 
without jurisdiction, "this court will notice the defect and have jurisdiction 
on appeal, not on the merits, but merely for the purpose of correcting the error 
of the lower court in maintaining the suit."  Gookin [v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 
826 P.2d 229,] 232 [(Wyo. 1992)].'"  NMC v. JLW ex rel. NAW, 2004 WY 56, ¶ 9, 
90 P.3d 93, 96 (Wyo. 2004) (quoting Pawlowski v. Pawlowski, 925 P.2d 240, 242 (Wyo. 
1996)).  The appeal must be dismissed because we 
can have no better jurisdiction than did the district court.  Wooster v. Carbon County School Dist. No. 1, 
2005 WY 47, ¶ 22, 109 P.3d 893, 900 (Wyo. 2005).