Opinion ID: 2588796
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Costs and Fees

Text: [¶17] Mr. Veile argues the Board violated its own rules by refusing to participate in the contested case regarding Mr. Bryant's license, causing Mr. Veile to incur certain expenses for which he claims he should be reimbursed. We conclude the Board acted properly and no authority exists to provide Mr. Veile reimbursement for the expenses he incurred in prosecuting his complaints. [¶18] Section 33-16-311 states: A petition for the revocation or suspension of a license may be filed by the attorney general or by the county attorney of the county in which the licensee resides or has practiced, or by any citizen residing in this state. The statute mandates that, after receiving a petition for the revocation or suspension of a license, the Board shall make an order fixing a time and place of hearing. Thus, the Board followed the statute and set the matter for hearing based solely on Mr. Veile's petition. However, Mr. Veile asserts that because the Board sent a document entitled Notice and Complaint to Mr. Bryant, the Board was somehow proceeding pursuant to Chapter 11, § 3(b)(i) of the Board's rules which sets forth a process for handling complaints, and therefore, the Board should have prosecuted the case according to that provision of the Board's rules which states: A committee of two (2) Board members, appointed on a rotating basis by the president of the Board, shall review each complaint and where necessary, direct further investigation. . . . (b) Following review and investigation of a complaint, the committee may take any appropriate action, including but not necessarily limited to the following: (i) Forward the complaint filed by a complainant to the Board for formal disciplinary proceedings. However, the rules do not address how the Board is to proceed when any person files a petition for revocation or suspension of license pursuant to the statute. The Notice and Complaint sent by the Board was simply notice to Mr. Bryant as required by § 33-16-311, not a complaint filed on behalf of the Board. In fact, the record indicates the Board did not draft, mail or serve the document. A letter from Mr. Veile's attorney stated: Please find enclosed the original Notice and Complaint to be served upon Mike Bryant via the Sheriff of Washakie County. Would you please have an appropriate agent or member of the Board sign this, forward it for service and request a return of service for filing? I am providing this to you directly so that there is no confusion of its whereabouts. Correspondence from the Board recognizes the purpose of the document is only that of notice: This letter is to place you on notice. [¶19] The Board had received, considered and dismissed Mr. Veile's prior complaints regarding Mr. Bryant. In a letter to Mr. Veile dated September 20, 1996, the Board stated: Based on the evidence submitted in the complete report, the recommendation to the Board was to dismiss all complaints filed by you for lack of evidence supporting your claims. The Board was [apprised] of the situation and concurred with the recommendation of the investigative committee. Accordingly, the complaints against Mr. Bryant have been dismissed and the Board now considers the matter closed. From that point on, the Board made it clear to Mr. Veile that it considered the matter closed. When Mr. Veile filed a Petition for Revocation or Suspension of License, the Board immediately responded to apprise [Mr. Veile] of the board's interpretation of Wyo. Stat. § 33-16-311. The letter quoted the statute and then stated: The statute requires the board to set the matter for hearing. The statute does not, however, state that the board is responsible for presentation of the petition. The board contends that neither the board nor its counsel [is] responsible for presenting the petition or the case for consideration at the hearing. The board interprets the statutes to mean that the petitioner is responsible for presentation of the petition and evidence at the hearing. The board would then rule on evidence presented at the hearing. When Mr. Veile was granted permission to present additional information to the Board, Mr. Veile's attorney wrote the Board's attorney a letter on January 20, 2000, stating: I would draw your attention to Wyo. Stat. XX-XX-XXX, wherein it provides that, Upon presentation of the petition to said board, the board SHALL make an order fixing a time and place of hearing hereon thereon. . . [emphasis added.] I have enclosed a letter from Susan Sellers, one of your predecessors, wherein she believes that we would be responsible for prosecuting the case before the Board. I am not sure how that would comport with the Board's Rules, but we are fully willing to prosecute the case before the Board. . . . Quite frankly, I would welcome that opportunity. We can infer from the correspondence between the Board and Mr. Veile that Mr. Veile filed the Reassertion, Refiling and Supplement to Amended Petition for Revocation or Suspension with full knowledge that the Board would not pursue the action, and that Mr. Veile would be required to do so. Nothing in the statute or rules required the Board to do otherwise. [¶20] The statute provides no authority for reimbursement of costs and fees incurred by a person pursuing a complaint. Therefore, Mr. Veile's claim for such reimbursement must be rejected.