Opinion ID: 2514681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the appellant fail timely to report an injury to his employer and fail timely to report an injury to the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division?

Text: [¶ 10] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-502(a) provides that an injured employee must report the general nature of the accident or injury to his or her employer within 72 hours after the general nature of the injury became apparent. The same statutory subsection requires an injured employee to file an injury report with the Division within ten days after the injury became apparent. Subsection (c) of the same statute provides that failure to do both of these tasks results in a presumption that the claim shall be denied. See Wesaw v. Quality Maint. (In re Worker's Comp. Claim), 2001 WY 17, ¶ 14, 19 P.3d 500, 506 (Wyo.2001). To overcome the presumption, the employee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the delay prejudiced neither the employer nor the Division in investigating the injury and in monitoring medical treatment. Id. at ¶ 12, at 505. [¶ 11] In its first Order Denying Benefits, the OAH found that the appellant did not report the injury to his employer within 72 hours and did not file an injury report with the Division within 10 days of the apparent injury. In its conclusions of law, the OAH then detailed the time limits of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-502(a) and the presumption of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-502(c). None of this, however, appeared to factor into the denial of the claim. In any event, that Order was vacated by our decision in Bush I, 2005 WY 120, ¶ 13, 120 P.3d at 181. [¶ 12] In the second go-round, the hearing examiner entered a more fully detailed Order in which benefits were denied solely based upon the conclusion that the appellant had not met his burden of proving that the injury was work-related. The issues of timely reporting and timely filing are not even mentioned in the Order and apparently had no bearing upon the decision to deny benefits. Nor was timeliness raised by the district court in affirming the Order of the OAH. That, no doubt, is why the appellant did not raise the issue in his current appellate brief. [¶ 13] The Division contends, to the contrary, that the issue of timeliness survives, and is before this Court, because it was a basis for decision in the Final Determination and was listed as an issue in the Notice of Referral for Hearing. We do not agree. Even though the hearing examiner did not provide an additional hearing upon remand, the Division still had the opportunity to raise in the district court the hearing examiner's failure to address timeliness in the second OAH Order, and it did not do so. Because untimely reporting and filing create only an evidentiary presumption, rather than a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we need not raise or consider the issue. It is our determination that, if the issue did survive the first go-round, the Division waived it below in the second go-round.