Gray v. State, ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs.

• Docket Number: S-23-0111
• Decision Date: 19 December 2023
• Parties: JAMES D. GRAY, Appellant (Petitioner), v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

1

2023 WY 123

JAMES D. GRAY, Appellant (Petitioner),
v.
STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent).

No. S-23-0111

Supreme Court of Wyoming

December 19, 2023

Appeal from the District Court of Crook County The Honorable James Michael Causey, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Jason Johnson, Davis, Johnson & Kallal, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General; Mark Klaassen, Deputy Attorney General; Peter Howard, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Holli J. Welch, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Before FOX, C.J., KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

2

BOOMGAARDEN, JUSTICE.

[¶1] James Gray applied to the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division) for permanent total disability benefits (PTD benefits) after a work-related injury. The Medical Commission concluded after a contested case hearing that Mr. Gray proved his eligibility for PTD benefits through the odd lot doctrine, but it deferred an issue of law regarding whether a physician's certification is required for PTD benefits in odd lot cases. The Division referred the legal issue to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The hearing examiner determined PTD benefits could not be awarded in an odd lot case without a physician's certification and denied Mr. Gray's claim. The district court affirmed. We reverse.

ISSUE

[¶2] The single issue before us is whether a physician's certification is required to receive PTD benefits through the odd lot doctrine.

FACTS

[¶3] In November 2018, a one-hundred-pound metal baffle fell off of a pile of lumber and onto Mr. Gray during the course of his employment. The accident injured Mr. Gray's cervical spine, collarbone, right shoulder, left leg, and left ankle. He also lost some teeth as a result of the accident. Mr. Gray reported the workplace injury to the Division. The Division determined the injuries to Mr. Gray's cervical spine, shoulder, leg, and ankle were compensable. Mr. Gray received temporary total disability benefits for at least fifteen months. In late January 2020, one of Mr. Gray's medical providers opined that he reached his maximum medical improvement but declined to opine on his permanent impairment, recommending instead a functional capacity evaluation.

[¶4] In August 2020, Mr. Gray applied for PTD benefits. The Division denied the application, noting the absence of a physician's certification of the permanent total disability. Mr. Gray objected to the Division's decision, and the matter was referred to the Medical Commission. A functional capacity evaluation and vocational assessment followed, prior to the Medical Commission's hearing. The vocational evaluator determined Mr. Gray is unemployable in any occupation due to a myriad of medical limitations associated with the workplace injuries, coupled with vocational limitations related to Mr. Gray's skills, education, and training.

[¶5] The Medical Commission held a contested case hearing in October 2021. Mr. Gray asserted his claim should be viewed under the odd lot doctrine and that no physician's certification is required for PTD benefits through that doctrine. The Medical Commission found Mr. Gray met his burden to establish his eligibility for PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine. However, the Medical Commission concluded it did not have jurisdiction to

3

determine as a matter of law whether a physician's certification is required to receive benefits under that doctrine. The Medical Commission referred the matter back to the Division for resolution of that legal question. The Division then referred the matter to the OAH.

[¶6] Mr. Gray and the Division agreed there were no disputed issues of material fact and the only issue was one of law regarding the physician's certification. They both moved the OAH for summary judgment to resolve that question. A hearing examiner heard arguments on the motions in March 2022. The hearing examiner decided in favor of the Division, holding that a physician's certification is required to receive PTD benefits through the odd lot doctrine. Mr. Gray appealed that decision to the district court. The district court affirmed the hearing examiner's decision. This appeal timely follows.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶7] We examine this matter as if it came directly from the agency and give no deference to the district court's decision. Bressler v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2023 WY 94, ¶ 12, 536 P.3d 224, 227-28 (Wyo. 2023) (citing Genner v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2022 WY 123, ¶ 12, 517 P.3d 1138, 1142 (Wyo. 2022)). Our review is governed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act which, in pertinent part, requires us to set aside agency actions that are "not in accordance with law" or are "[u]nsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (A), (E) (2023). The substantial evidence standard of review applies to evidentiary findings after contested case proceedings, but we review conclusions of law de novo. Bressler, 2023 WY 94, ¶ 13, 536 P.3d at 228 (citation omitted); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) ("[T]he reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.").

[¶8] This appeal arose from a contested case proceeding, but the parties do not dispute the evidentiary finding that Mr. Gray meets the criteria for PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine. Without a challenge to the substantial evidence supporting the Medical Commission's conclusion, the sole issue for our review is the Division's conclusion of law. "Absent evidentiary dispute, the standard of review for contested case hearings is simply stated as whether an agency's conclusions are in accordance with the law." Jacobs v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2009 WY 118, ¶ 11, 216 P.3d 1128, 1132 (Wyo. 2009) (citation omitted). Under this standard of review, we afford no deference to the agency's determination and will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law. Id. (citation omitted).

4

DISCUSSION

[¶9] This appeal asks us to evaluate the relationship between the common law odd lot doctrine and the statutory framework for PTD benefits. To receive PTD benefits through the statutory framework, a claimant must meet the definition of permanent total disability. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xvi) defines "permanent total disability" as:

the loss of use of the body as a whole or any permanent injury certified under W.S. 27-14-406, which permanently incapacitates the employee from performing work at any gainful occupation for which he is reasonably suited by experience or training[.]

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-406(a) provides, in pertinent part:

Subject to W.S. 27-14-602, upon certification by a physician licensed to practice surgery or medicine that an injury results in permanent total disability as defined under W.S. 27-14-102(a)(xvi), an injured employee shall receive for eighty (80) months a monthly payment as provided by W.S. 27-14-403(c)[.]

The Division, the hearing examiner, and the district court narrowly construed this statutory framework for PTD benefits. What the Division, hearing examiner, and district court overlooked, however, is that the longstanding common law odd lot doctrine affords a particularized statutory application in certain cases.

[¶10] The odd lot doctrine is a common...