Opinion ID: 2632231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the Petition to Modify Barred by Failure to Appeal Denial of Temporary Total Disability for a Different Time Frame?

Text: The division argues Osenbaugh's petition to reopen and modify was barred due to his failure to timely object to its final determination of his April 2, 1999, TTD claim as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-601(k)(vi) (LEXIS 1999). The April 2, 1999, TTD claim was for the period of March 1, 1999, through April 30, 1999. It is undisputed Osenbaugh did not request a hearing on the division's final determination denying his claim for that two-month time frame. The statute is crystal clear: Once a final determination is made, a party must object and request a hearing or the determination of compensability is not subject to any further administrative or judicial review. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-601(k)(vi) (LEXIS 1999). Pacificorp v. Todd, 1 P.3d 1216, 1219 (Wyo. 2000). However, on May 6, 1999, Osenbaugh submitted a letter requesting his case # XX-XX-XXXX[be] reopened and modified. (Emphasis added.) This initial petition was expanded and clarified upon counsel's filing of a more formal pleading on June 18, 1999, entitled Petition to Reopen and Modify. Initially, the petition requested benefits from March 1, 1999, until such time as he qualified for an additional award of permanent partial or permanent total disability benefits. However, at the hearing, Osenbaugh conceded he was barred from again requesting TTD benefits for the March 1, 1999, through April 30, 1999, time period. In the Order Denying Benefits issued September 7, 1999, this claim period was dismissed, and Osenbaugh has not raised an issue as to the appropriateness of this aspect of the order on appeal. Despite the fact that the remaining claim covers a different time period, the division argues that it is also barred. The division's position is contrary to its stipulation below: [A]lthough we think that the petition to modify is controlled under 404, as a matter of law we are willing to stipulate that the employee claimant can go forward with his 605 claim today, or whatever matters he wants to present on that, as if it had been formally denied by the Division. (Emphasis added.) This stipulation was subsequently reiterated in the hearing as follows: [T]o the extent that there may be some question as to whether or not the employee/claimant can proceed on [his] 605 petition today, our position is that we would stipulate that he may. (Emphasis added.) It was further discussed by the hearing examiner and the attorneys that the TTD benefits time frame at issue was from the date of Osenbaugh's May 6, 1999, petition to reopen and modify to the date of the hearingAugust 17, 1999. The division unequivocally stipulated that the § 27-14-605(a) claim was properly before the Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication on the merits. By entering into the stipulation, the division gave its consent to further proceedings in the proper forum. Warehime v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 806 P.2d 292, 295 (Wyo.1991); see also Midwest Refining Co. v. George, 41 Wyo. 55, 281 P. 1005 (1929). Furthermore, the claimant is not collaterally estopped from seeking TTD benefits for a different time frame. Section [27-14]-601(k)([vi]) merely provides that failure to object to a final determination precludes further administrative or judicial review of the claim at issue. This does not necessarily mean that an uncontested final determination will be given preclusive effect in subsequent proceedings for outstanding claims. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division v. Jackson, 994 P.2d 320, 323 (Wyo.1999) (emphasis added); see also Tenorio v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 931 P.2d 234 (Wyo.1997). Osenbaugh's petition to reopen and modify TTD benefits for May 6, 1999, through August 17, 1999, had not reached a final adjudication on the merits at the time of the hearing and was not precluded. This Court does not give collateral estoppel effect to an uncontested Division determination denying benefits. Jackson, 994 P.2d at 323.