Opinion ID: 1198895
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: W.R.C.P. 60(b)

Text: The claimant did not argue at his administrative hearing that, under W.R.C.P. 60(b), he was entitled to be relieved from the division's denial of his worker's compensation claim. Nonetheless, he asserts that this Court should, on its own motion, construe his § 27-14-605(a) application as being a request for relief under W.R.C.P. 60(b). He relies on Herring v. Welltech, Inc., 660 P.2d 361 (Wyo. 1983), to support his argument. In Herring, this Court treated Herring's application to reopen his worker's compensation case as a W.R.C.P. 60(b) motion. 660 P.2d at 367. That case involved unique circumstances in which the district court and the clerk of the district court disregarded express statutory requirements in handling Herring's claim. 660 P.2d at 366-67. The statutory violations rendered the judgment against Herring void, and the totality of the circumstances of that case justified giving Herring relief from the adverse judgment. Id. The circumstances of the case at bar are different from those circumstances which were presented in Herring. The record does not show that the division violated the worker's compensation law. The Herring ruling, therefore, is not applicable in this case, and we will not, on our own motion, construe the claimant's application to reopen his case under § 27-14-605(a) as being a W.R.C.P. 60(b) motion. The claimant waived his right to argue on appeal that he was entitled to have relief under W.R.C.P. 60(b) because he did not present that issue to the hearing examiner. As we have consistently stated over many years, Wyoming appellate courts do not review issues raised for the first time on appeal. This rule is equally applicable to appeals from administrative decisions as to those from district courts. Nelson v. Sheridan Manor, 939 P.2d 252, 255 (Wyo.1997) (citations omitted). The claimant also contends that public policy dictates that he should be allowed to reopen his case. We have recognized that the worker's compensation law seeks to balance the concept of finality with the desire to see that a claimant receives no less and no more than that to which he is lawfully entitled. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Jerding, 868 P.2d 244, 249 (Wyo.1994). Although the claimant may have been entitled to receive worker's compensation benefits, he did not follow the proper procedures to reopen his case, and public policy does not require that we abandon the concept of finality to correct the claimant's mistake. Affirmed.