IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2020 WY 4

 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2019

January 8, 2020

BRUCE HAYSE, M.D. and PAUL CASSIDY,

Appellants

(Petitioners),

v.

WYOMING BOARD OF CORONER 

STANDARDS,

Appellee

(Respondent).

S-19-0109

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County

The Honorable Timothy C. Day, Judge

Representing Appellants:

Frank R. Chapman and Patrick J. Lewallen, Chapman Valdez & Lansing, Casper, 

Wyoming; Deidre J. Bainbridge, Attorney at Law, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument 

by Mr. Lewallen.

Representing Appellee:

Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General; Michael J. McGrady, Deputy Attorney General. 

Argument by Mr. McGrady.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

FOX, J., delivers the opinion of the Court; KAUTZ, J., files a dissenting opinion.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are 

requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of 

any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the 

permanent volume.
1

FOX, Justice.

[¶1] This case arises from an ongoing dispute over the Teton County Coroner’s alleged 

misconduct during a coroner’s inquest. We affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a 

related action seeking to set aside the coroner’s inquest verdict in In re Birkholz, 2019 WY 

19, 434 P.3d 1102 (Wyo. 2019). While that action was pending, Paul Cassidy and 

Dr. Bruce Hayse requested that the Board of Coroner Standards (Board) investigate the 

coroner’s alleged misconduct. The Board refused to investigate, and the district court 

affirmed its refusal. We also affirm. 

ISSUE

[¶2] We decide the following dispositive issue: 

Does the Board of Coroner Standards have authority to review 

complaints alleging that a coroner committed misconduct 

while conducting an inquest?

FACTS

[¶3] In their previous action, Paul Cassidy and Dr. Bruce Hayse alleged that Teton 

County Coroner, Dr. Brent Blue, committed misconduct during a coroner’s inquest into 

the death of Anthony Lee Birkholz. See generally In re Birkholz, 2019 WY 19, 434 P.3d 

1102. They also sought to have the Board of Coroner Standards investigate Dr. Blue’s 

alleged misconduct. The Board refused to investigate the inquest, concluding that it did 

not have statutory authority to do so. The Board asserted that under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-

4-211 its “narrow purpose . . . is to develop and promulgate training standards” and 

“enforce compliance with those standards.” Mr. Cassidy and Dr. Hayse responded, 

arguing that “the Board is charged with establishing coroner’s standards dealing with the 

investigation of coroner’s cases” and “has the authority to enforce those standards[.]” The 

Board again declined to investigate the inquest. On petition for judicial review, the district 

court affirmed the Board’s refusal to investigate. Mr. Cassidy and Dr. Hayse timely 

appealed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶4] We review an agency decision “as if it came directly from the administrative 

agency” and give no deference to the district court’s decision on appeal. State ex rel. Dep’t 

of Workforce Servs. v. Williams, 2018 WY 10, ¶ 23, 409 P.3d 1219, 1226 (Wyo. 2018) 

(citing Price v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Workers’ Comp. Div., 2017 WY 

16, ¶ 7, 388 P.3d 786, 789 (Wyo. 2017)). We review an agency’s conclusions of law de 

novo. Casiano v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep’t of Transp., 2019 WY 16, ¶ 8, 434 P.3d 116, 120 

(Wyo. 2019) (citing Lietz v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Family Servs., 2018 WY 127, ¶ 11, 430 
2

P.3d 310, 314 (Wyo. 2018)). The issue of whether the Board has authority to review 

complaints that a coroner committed misconduct while conducting an inquest requires us 

to interpret Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-211. “Statutory interpretation raises questions of law, 

which we review de novo.” Camacho v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Workers’

Comp. Div., 2019 WY 92, ¶ 17, 448 P.3d 834, 841 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting State ex rel. Wyo. 

Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div. v. Smith, 2013 WY 26, ¶ 9, 296 P.3d 939, 941-42 (Wyo. 

2013)). 

DISCUSSION

[¶5] Mr. Cassidy and Dr. Hayse argue that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-211(c)(vi) requires the 

Board to review complaints of coroner misconduct, and presumably to take some sort of 

action in response to any misconduct. The Board responds that the “Legislature limited 

the Board’s authority to investigating whether a coroner has completed basic education and 

training requirements, it did not authorize the Board to investigate the day-to-day actions 

of a duly elected county official.”

[¶6] Our goal in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the legislature’s intent. Wyo. Jet 

Ctr., LLC v. Jackson Hole Airport Bd., 2019 WY 6, ¶ 12, 432 P.3d 910, 915 (Wyo. 2019) 

(citing PacifiCorp, Inc. v. Wyo. Dep’t of Rev., 2017 WY 106, ¶ 10, 401 P.3d 905, 908-09 

(Wyo. 2017)). We attempt to determine legislative intent based primarily on the plain and 

ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute. Wyo. Jet Ctr., 2019 WY 6, ¶ 12, 432 

P.3d at 915. “Where legislative intent is discernible a court should give effect to the ‘most 

likely, most reasonable, interpretation of the statute, given its design and purpose.’” Id. 

(quoting Adekale v. State, 2015 WY 30, ¶ 12, 344 P.3d 761, 765 (Wyo. 2015)). Further, 

we 

construe each statutory provision in pari materia, giving effect 

to every word, clause, and sentence according to their 

arrangement and connection. To ascertain the meaning of a 

given law, we also consider all statutes relating to the same 

subject or having the same general purpose and strive to 

interpret them harmoniously. We presume that the legislature 

has acted in a thoughtful and rational manner with full 

knowledge of existing law, and that it intended new statutory 

provisions to be read in harmony with existing law and as part 

of an overall and uniform system of jurisprudence. When the 

words used convey a specific and obvious meaning, we need 

not go farther and engage in statutory construction. 
3

Wyo. Jet Ctr., 2019 WY 6, ¶ 12, 432 P.3d at 915. Applying these rules, we conclude that 

the Board does not have authority to investigate allegations of coroner misconduct.

1

[¶7] Mr. Cassidy and Dr. Hayse rely on Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-211 for their assertion the 

Board has that authority. Section 211 creates the Board of Coroner Standards and outlines 

its duties. Subsection (c) directs the Board to promulgate various standards, nearly all of 

which relate to education and training. 

(c) The board shall:

(i) Meet at least biannually and at the call of the 

chairman or of a majority of the membership; 

(ii) Promulgate standards dealing with the 

investigation of coroner’s cases; 

 1 A “coroner’s case” is:

a case involving a death which was not anticipated and which may involve 

any of the following conditions:

(A) Violent or criminal action;

(B) Apparent suicide;

(C) Accident;

(D) Apparent drug or chemical overdose or toxicity;

(E) The deceased was unattended by a physician or other licensed 

health care provider;

(F) Apparent child abuse causes;

(G) The deceased was a prisoner, trustee, inmate or patient of any 

county or state corrections facility or state hospital, whether or not 

the death is unanticipated;

(H) If the cause is unknown or cannot be certified by a physician;

(J) A public health hazard is presented; or

(K) The identity of the victim is unknown or the body is 

unclaimed.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-104(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2019) (“I” omitted in original). 
4

(iii) Promulgate educational and training 

requirements for coroner basic and continuing 

education requirements and review those requirements 

annually; 

(iv) Cooperate with the peace officer standards and 

training commission in developing basic and continuing 

education courses for coroners; 

(v) Promulgate employment standards for deputy 

coroners and coroner employees. The standards may 

include the requirement that deputy coroners and 

coroner employees provide to the employing coroner 

fingerprints and other information necessary for a state 

and national criminal history record background check 

and release of information as provided in W.S. 7-19-

106(k)(ii) and federal P.L. 92-544 and consent to the 

release of any criminal history information to the 

employing coroner; 

(vi) Promulgate rules and regulations to provide for 

the review of complaints if a coroner or deputy coroner 

has failed to comply with any provision of W.S. 7-4-103 

or this subsection or has failed to meet any educational 

or training requirement provided under this section. 

The board shall make recommendations to the peace 

officer standards and training commission regarding 

revocation of certifications based on these 

investigations; 

(vii) Provide for a system to offer educational 

programs to assist coroners and deputy coroners in 

meeting educational and training requirements provided 

under this section. 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-211(c) (LexisNexis 2019).

[¶8] Subsection (c)(vi) directs the Board to provide for the review of complaints 

regarding a coroner’s compliance “with any provision of W.S. 7-4-103 or this 

subsection[.]” Mr. Cassidy and Dr. Hayse assert that, read in conjunction with subsection 

(c)(ii), this provision requires the Board to investigate allegations that a coroner has 

violated Board-promulgated rules “dealing with the investigation of coroner’s cases.” This 

view is flawed. First, subsection (c)(vi) authorizes Board investigation for failure to 
5

comply with “this subsection.” It makes no reference to authority to investigate for alleged 

failure to comply with Board standards. The legislature has incorporated standards or rules 

violations as a basis for professional discipline in many other contexts and could have done 

so here, but did not.2 Second, the Board standard upon which Appellants rely lacks the 

specificity required to form the basis for any discipline, instead setting forth a general and 

vague rule of conduct: “the Coroners shall conduct themselves in a manner consistent with 

the highest standards of professionalism, compassion, and respect.” Board of Coroner 

Standards Rules and Regulations, ch. 6, § 2. See Bd. of Trustees, Laramie Cty. Sch. Dist. 

No. 1 v. Spiegel, 549 P.2d 1161, 1171 (Wyo. 1976) (stated reasons for termination of 

employment contract were too “vague and indefinite” to allow appellee to defend against 

them). 

[¶9] Further, Appellants’ isolated reading of subsection (c)(vi), is undercut by the limited 

action that section authorizes the Board to take in response to complaints against coroners. 

The second sentence of section (c)(vi) authorizes the Board to “make recommendations to 

the peace officer standards and training commission [(POST)] regarding revocation of 

certifications[.]” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-211(c)(vi). It provides the Board no other course 

of action for a coroner’s alleged violation of section 7-4-211(c). Id. POST is a commission 

charged with establishing and enforcing training and educational standards for various law 

enforcement officers. See generally Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 9-1-701 through 711 (LexisNexis 

2019); see also POST Rules, ch. 1, § 2 (“The purpose of [POST] is to raise and maintain 

the level of competence within the law enforcement community.”). It would be absurd to 

conclude that the Board must “make recommendations” to a commission designed to 

enforce training and education standards for conduct unrelated to training and education. 

See Adekale, 2015 WY 30, ¶ 13, 344 P.3d at 765-66 (“This Court will not interpret a statute 

in a way which renders any portion of it meaningless or in a manner producing absurd 

results.”). Moreover, the “recommendations” the Board is authorized to make to POST 

relate exclusively to “revocation of certifications.” The only certification a coroner might 

have revoked is that referenced in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-103, which requires coroners and 

deputy coroners to complete a basic coroner’s course and “[c]ontinuing education 

 2 See, e.g., Dissenting Opinion at ¶ 16 (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 9-1-702(f)(v) (LexisNexis 2019) states POST 

“shall . . . [g]rant, suspend or revoke certification of peace officers or dispatchers for substantial failure to 

comply with this act or the rules of [POST]”) (emphasis in original); see also Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-103(d) 

(stating that no person “who does not meet the employment standards adopted by the board of coroner 

standards pursuant to W.S. 7-4-211(c)(v)” shall continue in office) (emphasis added); see also Wyo. Stat. 

Ann. § 33-26-402(a)(xxxi) (LexisNexis 2019) (authorizing board of medicine to discipline physicians for 

“[v]iolation of any board rule or regulation”); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-3-121(a)(iv) (LexisNexis 2019) 

(authorizing the board of certified public accountants to discipline licensees for “[v]iolation of any rule 

promulgated by the board”); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-21-146(a)(ix) (LexisNexis 2019) (authorizing board of 

nursing to discipline licensee that has “been found by the board to have violated any of the provisions . . . 

of board rules and regulations”); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-4-115(a)(vi) (LexisNexis 2019) (authorizing board 

of architects to discipline a licensee for “[v]iolating . . . a rule or regulation of the board promulgated 

pursuant to this act”).
6

requirements promulgated by the board of coroner standards pursuant to W.S. 7-4-

211(c)(iii).” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-103(a) (LexisNexis 2019). The remedy provided in 

subsection (c)(vi) plainly relates to a coroner’s failure to comply with training and 

education standards. We presume that the legislature acts in a thoughtful and rational 

manner when enacting statutes. Wyo. Jet Ctr., 2019 WY 6, ¶ 12, 432 P.3d at 915. It would 

be far from thoughtful and rational to authorize the Board to investigate misconduct 

unrelated to education and training, while simultaneously denying it the ability to redress 

it.3

 

[¶10] The remainder of section 211 bolsters our conclusion that the Board only has 

authority to review complaints related to coroner education and training. Subsection 

211(d) requires POST to cooperate with the Board to develop “course requirements and 

continuing education requirements[.]” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-211(d). Subsection (e) 

directs the Board to contact the district attorney or the attorney general when necessary “to 

remove any coroner who is not in compliance with W.S. 7-4-103.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-

4-211(e). As noted, section 7-4-103 establishes coroner certification requirements, which 

are exclusively related to education and training. Finally, subsection (f) directs the Board 

to notify county commissioners “of any coroner or deputy coroner who has had his 

certification revoked.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-211(f). In short, Section 7-4-211 authorizes 

the Board to take limited action against coroners only when it concludes a coroner has 

violated required educational and training standards. Because the Board is not authorized 

to take any action in response to alleged instances of coroner misconduct, it would be 

pointless to require the Board to investigate complaints of coroner misconduct. We decline 

to do so. See Adekale, 2015 WY 30, ¶ 13, 344 P.3d at 765-66.

[¶11] Our analysis is also guided by the rule limiting an agency’s authority to that 

expressly granted by the legislature: 

An administrative agency is limited in authority to 

powers legislatively delegated. “Administrative 

agencies are creatures of statute and their power is 

dependent upon statutes, so that they must find within

 3 Mr. Cassidy and Dr. Hayse assert “the remedy from the [Board] is to investigate.” They speculate that, 

from that investigation, “some report that comes of that, some finding of fact that the [Board] would publish 

and give to the parties . . . and it’s with that document . . . that something in addition can be done. . . . It 

would then be incumbent on . . . complainants to do with that report what they feel necessary.” There is no 

authority, statutory or otherwise, indicating that a Board investigation would result in “some report” or 

“finding of fact,” nor is there any basis to conclude that such a document would allow “something in 

addition” to be done. We have no authority to supply Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-211(c)(vi) with this missing 

language. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters Local Union No. 5058 v. Gillette/Wright/Campbell Cty. Fire Prot.

Joint Powers Bd., 2018 WY 75, ¶ 33, 421 P.3d 1059, 1067 (Wyo. 2018) (“This Court is not at liberty to 

add words to a statute that the legislature chose to omit.”). 
7

the statute warrant for the exercise of any authority 

which they claim.”

Amoco Production Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 12 P.3d 

668, 673 (Wyo. 2000) (citations omitted). “An agency is 

wholly without power to modify, dilute or change in any way 

the statutory provisions from which it derives its authority.” 

Platte Development Co. v. State, Environmental Quality 

Council, 966 P.2d 972, 975 (Wyo. 1998). Thus, administrative 

agencies are bound to comply with their enabling statutes. 

Sears v. Romer, 928 P.2d 745, 751 (Colo. App. 1996). 

In re Billings, 2001 WY 81, ¶ 24, 30 P.3d 557, 568 (Wyo. 2001). The legislature has 

granted numerous professional boards authority to investigate and discipline licensees for 

violation of any rules promulgated by their respective boards. See supra n.2; Wyo. Stat. 

Ann. § 5-2-118 (LexisNexis 2019) (granting the Wyoming Supreme Court authority to 

promulgate rules of attorney conduct and to “[e]stablish[] practice and procedure for 

disciplining, suspending, and disbarring attorneys[.]”).

4

 Here, the authority granted to the 

Board is much more limited. The legislature did not authorize the Board to investigate a

coroner’s conduct during an inquest.

5

 Accordingly, we affirm. 

 4 The dissent’s comparison of revocation of a coroner’s certification to revocation of a county attorney’s 

bar license fails because there is simply no comparable disciplinary mechanism for coroners. And while 

POST has authority to suspend or revoke certification for violation of its rules, there is no legislative 

direction to suspend or revoke for violation of another agency’s rules.

5 The district court concluded that only Mr. Cassidy had standing to appeal the Board’s decision. Dr. Hayse 

appealed this ruling, claiming he, too, had a redressable injury. Having determined that Wyo. Stat. Ann. 

§ 7-4-211(c) does not allow the Board to redress their complaints, we conclude that both Mr. Cassidy and 

Dr. Hayse lacked standing. Sky Harbor Air Serv., Inc. v. Cheyenne Regl. Airport Bd., 2016 WY 17, ¶ 27, 

368 P.3d 264, 271 (Wyo. 2016) (identifying redressability as one of three standing requirements).
8

KAUTZ, J., dissenting.

[¶12] I respectfully dissent.

[¶13] From the plain words of the applicable statutes, the Board of Coroners (Board) has 

the authority (and obligation) to review a complaint that a coroner failed to comply with 

the Board’s standards dealing with the investigation of coroner cases.

[¶14] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-211(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2019) requires the Board to 

“[p]romulgate standards dealing with the investigation of coroner’s cases.” This 

requirement obviously is separate from requirements for education and training. The 

Board established such standards. Bd. of Coroner Standards, Ch. 6 (2009). Section 7-4-

211(c)(vi) then requires the Board to promulgate rules and regulations for the review of 

complaints that a coroner or deputy coroner has failed to comply with “this subsection,” 

including § 7-4-211(c)(ii). I find the only logical meaning of these statutes is that the Board 

has the authority to review complaints that a coroner did not comply with the Board’s 

standards dealing with the investigation of coroner’s cases. Any other interpretation 

renders these plain provisions meaningless. Our rules of statutory construction require us 

to read the statute in a way to avoid making provisions meaningless. Britain v. Britain 

(Matter of Est. of Britain), 2018 WY 101, ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 978, 987 (Wyo. 2018).

[¶15] Section 7-4-211(c)(vi) provides the mechanism by which the standards for 

conducting coroner’s cases are enforced. It requires the Board to make recommendations 

to POST regarding revocations of certifications based on its investigation. The majority 

concludes that such recommendations are not a sufficient (even absurd) remedy because 

POST deals only with education and training and the coroners’ certifications deal only with 

education and training. But Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-103(a) (LexisNexis 2019) requires a 

coroner to have a certification in order to serve as a county coroner. Revocation of the 

certification would be a strong remedy. There is nothing absurd with requiring an elected 

official to obtain a license or certification based on education, and then requiring 

compliance with conduct standards as a condition for keeping that certification or 

license. A coroner’s requirement for a certification based on training is similar to the 

requirement that a county attorney pass the bar exam. Just as a county attorney’s bar 

license may be revoked or suspended for failure to comply with conduct standards, a 

coroner’s certification may be revoked under this statutory approach for failure to comply 

with conduct standards.

[¶16] POST is not limited to enforcing training and education requirements as suggested 

by the majority. It also has the authority to suspend or revoke certifications based on a 

failure to follow conduct standards. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 9-1-702(f)(v) (LexisNexis 2019)

states POST “shall . . . [g]rant, suspend or revoke certification of peace officers or 

dispatchers for substantial failure to comply with this act or the rules of [POST], subject 

to the contested case procedures of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure 
9

Act.” (emphasis added). Chapter 8 of the POST rules provides that POST can suspend or 

revoke a certification for a variety of reasons including (1) conviction of a felony 

(mandatory revocation or suspension); (2) unlawful use, possession or distribution of drugs 

(mandatory revocation or suspension); (3) existence of a physical or mental condition 

which substantially limits the officer’s ability to perform the essential duties of a peace 

officer or poses a direct threat to the health and safety of the public or fellow officers 

(discretionary revocation or suspension); (4) participation in other conduct or a pattern of 

conduct which tends to significantly undermine public confidence in the law enforcement 

profession, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, discriminatory conduct, and 

falsifying reports (discretionary revocation or suspension); (5) failure to meet the minimum 

standards for employment for peace officers (discretionary revocation or suspension); 

and (6) failure to meet the minimum training requirements (discretionary revocation or 

suspension). POST is much more than simply an education and training agency; it is an 

enforcement agency. Consequently, it is not “absurd” to require the Board to make 

recommendations to POST from investigations of a coroner’s alleged non-compliance with 

conduct standards.

[¶17] The majority opinion disregards portions of § 7-4-211(c) based on the absurdity 

doctrine. The absurdity doctrine

applies to unambiguous statutes “as a means to avoid applying 

the unequivocal language of a statute. But the doctrine has been 

strictly limited.” Robbins v. Chronister, 435 F.3d 1238, 1241 

(10th Cir.2006) (en banc). The absurdity doctrine applies “in 

only the most extreme of circumstances,” when an 

interpretation of a statute “leads to results so gross as to shock 

the general moral or common sense,” which is a “formidable 

hurdle” to the application of this doctrine. United States v. 

Husted, 545 F.3d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir.2008); Robbins, 435 

F.3d at 1241 (quotation omitted). It is not enough to show that 

[the legislature] intended a different result from the one 

produced by the plain language of the statute.

In re Taylor, 737 F.3d 670, 681 (10th Cir. 2013). Interpreting § 7-4-211(c) according to 

its plain language – authorizing and requiring the Board to review complaints regarding a 

coroner’s failure to comply with the Board’s standards regarding coroner’s cases – does 

not lead to results so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense. To the contrary, 

such a plain and logical interpretation fits common sense and gives effect to all of the 

statute.

[¶18] I would reverse, and would direct the Board to conduct an investigation.