Opinion ID: 1119601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Prospective Claims

Text: Wright contends that the Commission erred as a matter of law when it denied claims yet to be filed with the Division. He points to our recent decision, Daiss v. Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation, 965 P.2d 692 (Wyo.1998) wherein we stated: Neither the Act, the division's rules, nor Wyoming case law authorizes the medical commission to determine the compensability of a procedure when claims for the procedure have not been properly submitted or the procedure has not been the subject of a final determination by the division. Likewise, none of the above-mentioned sources authorizes a contested case hearing to be held on a request for approval of a proposed surgery. We conclude, therefore, that the medical commission properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether the employee's proposed back surgery would be compensable. Id. at 695 (emphasis added). Because this issue relates to subject matter jurisdiction, it is not waived. However, we find no reason to vacate the Commission's findings as to the matters properly before it. The record is unclear as to whether Wright submitted additional claims during the pendency of the proceeding. While he avers that he did not, in his brief he claims that the Medical Commission, in its written findings and conclusions, relied heavily upon the additional medical records and reports provided by Wright from health care providers ... whose claims had been left undetermined pending the results of the hearing before the Medical Commission. We also note that the Commission found that Wright had presented additional outstanding bills which rendered a small claims procedure inappropriate. To the extent that the Commission's ruling reaches the compensability of claims filed with the Division and presented to the Commission during the pendency of the hearing, the Commission's order is affirmed. This includes the Commission's finding that the MRI and the neuropsychological examination effectively ruled out the causation nexus between Wright's original injury and his current right upper extremity tremors. However, the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction over future claims. As a result, we find that the Commission's comments regarding future claims are merely a commentary on the res judicata effect of its ruling.