Leal v. State
Docket Number | S-23-0278 |
Decision Date | 14 August 2024 |
Citation | 553 P.3d 1181 |
Parties | Terry J. LEAL, Appellant (Petitioner), v. STATE of Wyoming, EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent), Dustin Kopp, Appellant (Petitioner), v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers’ Compensation Division, Appellee (Respondent). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) Certification from the District Court of Laramie County, The Honorable Peter H. Froelicher, Judge
Representing Appellant Leal: George Santini, Ross & Santini, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.Argument by Mr. Santini.
Representing Appellant Kopp: Michael D. Newman, Hampton & Newman, LC, Rock Springs, Wyoming.Argument by Mr. New-man.
Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Mark Klaassen, Deputy Attorney General; Peter Howard, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Holli J. Welch, Senior Assistant Attorney General.Argument by Ms. Welch.
Before FOX, C.J., and BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, FENN, and JAROSH, JJ.
[¶1] The Office of Administrative Hearings(OAH) concluded it lacked statutory authority under the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act(the Act) to order reimbursement of medical expert fees and denied reimbursement in two separate cases.Both cases were appealed to the district court.The district court certified the cases to this Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).We conclude OAH has the authority to order reimbursement of an employee’s reasonably incurred medical expert witness fees, and its decision to the contrary was not in accordance with the law.
[¶2] The issues are:
1.Was OAH’s decision denying full reimbursement of employee-claimantTerry J. Leal’s retained medical expert’s, Gregory Reichhardt, M.D., fees in accordance with law, supported by substantial evidence, an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious, or in excess of statutory authority or right?
2.Was OAH’s decision denying reimbursement of employee-claimant Dus- tin D. Kopp’s retained medical expert’s, Douglas G. Adler, M.D., fees in accordance with law, supported by substantial evidence, an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious, or in excess of statutory authority or right?
These issues arise from two rulings in comparable cases, and we answer them as a single inquiry.
[¶3] Ms. Leal’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits began in June 2021, when she was diagnosed with a right shoulder injury she attributed to work activities.Ms. Leal reported the injury to her employer and sought workers’ compensation coverage.The Department of Workforce Services, Workers’ Compensation Division(the Division) concluded her injury was not caused by her work and denied her claim.Ms. Leal objected and received a contested case hearing before OAH.
[¶4] An attorney was appointed to represent Ms. Leal.The order appointing the attorney provided he would be paid "a reasonable fee" for his services and would be "reimbursed for actual expenses reasonably incurred," including "expert witness fees."
[¶5] Causation was a key issue in the contested case, and clinic policies prohibited Ms. Leal’s treating physician from providing an opinion on causation.Ms. Leal retained a nontreating medical expert to testify on the issue.On Ms. Leal’s behalf, her attorney hired Dr. Gregory Reichhardt, a board-certified physical medicine and rehabilitation physician.After reviewing Ms. Leal’s records and conducting a physical examination, Dr. Reichhardt issued a report opining Ms. Leal’s work activities caused her shoulder injury and testified in conformance with the report.OAH found Ms. Leal’s injury was caused by her employment and awarded workers’ compensation benefits.
[¶6] Ms. Leal’s attorney then applied for attorney’s fees and costs, which included a request for reimbursement of fees paid to Dr. Reichhardt.The Division did not object.OAH denied reimbursement for Dr. Reichhardt’s fees based on Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-604(a)( ).It determined Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-604(a) only allows payment of an independent medical examination (IME) when a doctor is appointed by order of OAH, and the Act did not otherwise authorize OAH to pay for medical expert fees.Since Ms. Leal had retained Dr. Reichhardt as an expert witness "to perform an independent medical evaluation," and OAH had not ordered his appointment, OAH concluded it did not have statutory authority to order reimbursement.
[¶7] In May 2021, Mr. Kopp experienced abdominal pain at work.He reported the injury and sought workers’ compensation coverage.The Division concluded his injury was a recurrence of a prior hernia and not compensable.Following Mr. Kopp’s request for a contested case hearing, OAH appointed an attorney to represent him.The order appointing the attorney provided counsel would be "reimbursed for actual expenses reasonably incurred … (e.g. expert witness fees …)."
[¶8] At issue in Mr. Kopp’s case was the causal connection between his hernia and his employment.The Division retained Dr. Jonathan Fishman to review the record and provide an opinion on whether Mr. Kopp’s work caused his hernia.In response, Mr. Kopp’s attorney hired Dr. Douglas G. Adler to assess whether Mr. Kopp’s work caused his hernia.Mr. Kopp eventually prevailed, but prior to the case’s conclusion his attorney withdrew, and substitute counsel was appointed.Original counsel requested payment of fees and costs, including Dr. Adler’s fees.The Division objected to payment of Dr. Adler’s fees, and OAH denied payment of those fees.Reasoning as it had in Ms. Leal’s case, OAH found that Mr. Kopp was permitted to privately retain a physician to issue a written report but "the expenses associated with an independent medical evaluation, paper review, and preparation of a report must be borne by the injured worker" absent an appointment of that physician pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-604(a).
[¶9] Both Ms. Leal and Mr. Kopp sought district court review.The district court consolidated the cases and, pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b), certified them to this Court.1
[¶10]"When an administrative agency case is certified to this Court under W.R.A.P. 12.09(b), we apply the standards for judicial review set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)."Jonah Energy LLC v. Wyo. Dept of Revenue,2023 WY 87, ¶ 6, 534 P.3d 902, 905(Wyo.2023)(quotingWyodak Res. Dev. Corp. v. Wyo. Dep’t of Revenue,2017 WY 6, ¶ 14, 387 P.3d 725, 729(Wyo.2017)(citingWyodak Res. Dev. Corp. v. Wyo. Dep’t of Revenue,2002 WY 181, ¶ 9, 60 P.3d 129, 134(Wyo.2002)));Chesapeake Operating, LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue,2023 WY 107, ¶ 9, 537 P.3d 1134, 1138(Wyo.2023).
[1–3][¶11]Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) provides:
(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the 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.In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.The reviewing court shall:
…
(ii)Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be:
(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;
(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right;
(D) Without observance of procedure required by law; or
(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(LexisNexis 2023)."We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo and affirm only if its conclusions are in accordance with the law."Nagel v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Workers' Comp. Div.,2024 WY 15, ¶¶ 10–13, 542 P.3d 622, 626–27(Wyo.2024)(quotingTriplett v. State ex. rel. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Workers’ Comp. Div.,2021 WY 118, ¶ 35, 497 P.3d 903, 911(Wyo.2021)).Under this standard, no deference is afforded to the agency’s determination, and this Court has authority to "correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law."Jacobs v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div.,2009 WY 118, ¶ 11, 216 P.3d 1128, 1132(Wyo.2009)(quotingState ex rel. Wyo. Workers’Safety & Comp. Div. v. Garl,2001 WY 59, ¶ 9, 26 P.3d 1029, 1032(Wyo.2001)).This case requires interpretation of the Workers’ Compensation statutes."Interpretation of a statute involves a question of law and is reviewed de novo."Jonah, ¶ 7, 534 P.3d at 905(citations omitted).
[4–8][¶12] When interpreting statutes, our first step is to determine whether the applicable statutes are ambiguous.
A statute is unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree as to its meaning with consistency and predictability.A statute is ambiguous only if it is found to be vague or uncertain and subject to varying interpretations.When the words used are clear and unambiguous, a court risks an impermissible substitution of its own views, or those of others, for the intent of the legislature if any effort is made to interpret or construe statutes on any basis other than the language invoked by the legislature.… If the language selected by the legislature is sufficiently definitive, that language establishes the rule of law.… This inhibition upon statutory construction offers assurance that the legislative efforts and determinations of elected representatives will be made effective without judicial adjustment or gloss.
Kunkle v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div.,2005 WY 49, ¶ 11, 109 P.3d 887, 890(Wyo.2005)(citations and quotation marks omitted).
[9–14][¶13]"We seek the legislature’s intent ‘as...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
