Opinion ID: 1433803
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: October 19, 1995: Date stamp of Division showing receipt of counsel's letter regarding the physician's August 30, 1995 letter.

Text: 3. November 1, 1995: Letter from Sheneman's current counsel explaining, Mr. Sheneman has further explained to me that he sent his response on October 18, 2 days late, because he was waiting to receive a medical report that had been requested by Workers' Compensation. 4. January 10, 1996: Letter from Sheneman's current counsel stating By letter of November 1, I advised you of our position with respect to Mr. Sheneman's 2-days' late filing due to the problems he had getting the medical report that was requested by the Division. 5. May 3, 1996: In a hearing by conference call, Sheneman's counsel stated, It [the objection to the Final Determination] was a matter of a couple of days late. 6. June 28, 1996: In a hearing by conference call, Sheneman was asked if he ever attempt[ed] to explain to anyone at Workmen's Comp that [he was] going to be late in responding because [he was] late in getting the letter from the doctor. Sheneman responded, No, I wasn't aware that I had to notify them that I was going to be late. 7. Petition for Review states: Petitioner understood, or misunderstood, that, since he was still attempting to get the information requested by Respondent from his physician, he had until that information was made available to him to present the information to Respondent. Accordingly, Petitioner did not respond to the Final Determination in accordance with its terms on or before October 16 and, instead, did so when, on October 18, 1995, Petitioner sent a copy of his attending physician's letter to Respondent, which was received by Respondent on October 19, 1995. We find the calculation for receipt of the request on or before October 16, 1995 was correct and the Division's letter complied with the requirements of Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-601(j). [5] We hold the decision of the Department of Employment was based on substantial evidence, that is, relevant evidence that a reasonable mind can accept as adequate to support an agency's conclusion. Casper Oil Co. v. Evenson, 888 P.2d 221, 224 (Wyo.1995).