Court Opinion

ID: 9854964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:17:28.845797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:37.626658
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting.
I do not read the statute in the same way as the majority. I do not think the statute justifies the consideration of an award for permanent disability in this instance, and I would affirm the summary judgment of the hearing officer. Consequently, I dissent.
I am satisfied the statutory scheme in this instance encompasses something beyond a mere expectancy. The majority opinion points out Felipe Cordova had not made a claim for permanent disability benefits prior to his death from an unrelated cause. It also is clear he was not receiving an award for permanent disability and, as the majority correctly says, the focus must be upon whether he was entitled to receive a permanent disability award at the time of his death.
Even conceding the rule of liberal construction, we still must discern legislative intent with respect to this statutory enactment. As we said in State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Div. v. Halstead, 795 P.2d 760, 771 (Wyo.1990):
Legislative intent is the primary and foremost consideration in statutory construction. Such intent should be ascertained as nearly as possible from the language of the statute. State Board of Equalization v. Tenneco Oil Co., 694 P.2d 97 (Wyo.1985); State ex rel. Motor Vehicle Division v. Holtz, 674 P.2d 732 (Wyo.1983); In re Adoption of MM, 652 P.2d 974 (Wyo.1982); Wyoming State Department of Education v. Barber, 649 P.2d 681 (Wyo.1982). All portions of an act must be read in pari materia, and every word, clause and sentence of it must be given effect and considered so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, all with the purpose of ascertaining and giving effect to the legislative intent. Story v. State, 755 P.2d 228 (Wyo.1988); Hamlin v. Transcon Lines, 701 P.2d 1139 (Wyo.1985); Haddenham v. City of Laramie, 648 P.2d 551 (Wyo.1982).
*885I am unable to take the language relied upon in the majority opinion out of the context of the rest of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. For example, Wyo.Stat. § 27-14-501(f) (1991) provides that “[a] claim for permanent disability benefits under W.S. 27-14^405 and 27-14-406 and a claim for death benefits under W.S. 27-14-403 shall be filed with the division and the division shall transmit a copy to the clerk of court.” The filing of a claim is a prior condition to any award of benefits. The Division is responsible for review of a filed claim and is charged with either approving or denying it. If it is approved, the Division shall determine the amount of the award for compensation. A physical impairment rating must be received prior to determination of the amount of the award for permanent partial disability. Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-601(d) (1991). The same thing is true for permanent total disability. Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-406 (1991). Given the use of the word “award” in Wyo.Stat. § 27-14-403(d) (1991), I am unable to justify entitlement to an award unless the requisite statutory demands have been satisfied. Unfortunately, in this case, they were not.
I would affirm the order of the hearing examiner in this instance, even recognizing that the worker’s widow is entitled to concern and sympathy. I simply cannot justify the construction of the statute adopted by the majority.