McCallister v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs.
| Citation | 2022 WY 66 |
| Decision Date | 03 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-21-0214 |
| Parties | BLAINE M. McCALLISTER, Appellant (Petitioner), v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Albany County The Honorable Tori R.A. Kricken, Judge.
Representing Appellant:
Jason A. Matzen, Pence and MacMillan LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee:
Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Mark Klaassen, Deputy Attorney General; Peter F. Howard, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.
[¶1] The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division's (Division) denial of Blaine M. McCallister's request for an endless pool to treat his work-related injury, and the district court affirmed that decision. Mr. McCallister claims the OAH committed various errors of law. We affirm.
[¶2] The issues on appeal are:
[¶3] We previously decided another case involving Mr. McCallister's right to worker's compensation benefits for his 2012 cervical and thoracic spine injury. McCallister v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs., Workers' Comp. Div., 2019 WY 47, 440 P.3d 1078 (Wyo. 2019). Our resolution of the earlier case is relevant to our decision here, so we will incorporate some of the facts from that decision, supplementing with the salient facts from this case.
[¶4] In 2016, Mr. McCallister requested the Division preauthorize the purchase of several pieces of "non-typical" durable medical equipment (DME), including a small pool with an underwater treadmill known as an endless pool, to help him manage his medical condition at his home in rural Albany County. See id., ¶ 4, 440 P.3d at 1079. The Division denied his request for an endless pool, in part, because it was a non-compensable "personal item." Mr. McCallister objected and requested a hearing. The OAH held a contested case hearing in 2017 and upheld the Division's determination. McCallister, ¶ 4, 440 P.3d at 1079. Mr. McCallister petitioned for judicial review of the OAH decision, and the district court affirmed. Id., ¶ 8, 440 P.3d at 1080-81. Mr. McCallister appealed to this Court, and we held the district court did not have jurisdiction over Mr. McCallister's case because he filed his petition for review in the county where he was injured instead of the county where the administrative action was taken or the county where he lived, as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 (LexisNexis 2017). Id., ¶¶ 1-2, 50, 440 P.3d at 1079, 1090-91. Consequently, we dismissed his appeal and vacated the district court's decision, making the OAH decision final. Id.
[¶5] In 2020, Mr. McCallister submitted another request[2] to the Division for preauthorization of DME, including an endless pool. The Division denied his request on several grounds: the request was not filed by a healthcare provider; the pool was a non-compensable "personal item" under the relevant statutory and regulatory definitions; the pool was not reasonable or necessary to treat his work-related injury; and he was collaterally estopped from bringing his claim for an endless pool because the OAH had denied the same request in the 2017 proceeding. Mr. McCallister objected and demanded the Division refer the matter to the Medical Commission for a contested case hearing. The Division, however, referred the matter to the OAH.
[¶6] The OAH found it was the proper agency to resolve Mr. McCallister's claim because the issues were primarily legal. After a contested case hearing, the OAH disagreed with the Division's determination that Mr. McCallister's request for an endless pool was not properly submitted by a healthcare provider and found Mr. McCallister had met his burden of showing the endless pool was reasonable and necessary for treatment of his work-related injury. However, the OAH upheld the Division's denial of his claim because he was collaterally estopped from relitigating his right to the endless pool by the 2017 decision and the endless pool was a non-compensable "personal item" under Wyoming law. Mr. McCallister filed a proper petition for review, the district court affirmed, and he filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
[¶7] When an appeal is taken from a district court's review of an administrative agency's decision, we examine the case as if it came directly from the agency, giving no special deference to the district court's decision. In re Vinson, 2020 WY 126, ¶ 25, 473 P.3d 299, 308 (Wyo. 2020); Guerrero v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs., Workers' Comp. Div., 2015 WY 88, ¶ 11, 352 P.3d 262, 265 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 8, 188 P.3d 554, 557 (Wyo. 2008)). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2021) governs judicial review of administrative decisions:
[¶8] In accordance with § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), we review the agency's findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. Vinson, ¶ 26, 473 P.3d at 308. Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if there is relevant evidence in the record which "a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusion." Dale, ¶ 11, 188 P.3d at 558. See also, Kenyon v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2011 WY 14, ¶ 11, 247 P.3d 845, 849 (Wyo. 2011) . "'We review an agency's conclusions of law de novo[] and will affirm only if the agency's conclusions are in accordance with the law.'" Middlemass v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2011 WY 118, ¶ 13, 259 P.3d 1161, 1164 (Wyo. 2011) (quoting Kenyon, ¶ 13, 247 P.3d at 849) (other citations omitted).
The Division's Referral of the Case to the OAH [¶9] Mr. McCallister claims the Medical Commission rather than the OAH had subject matter jurisdiction to address his 2017[3] and 2020 cases because they were "medically contested." "'The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.'" MH v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 2020 WY 72, ¶ 4, 465 P.3d 405, 407 (Wyo. 2020) (). Our determination of the OAH's jurisdiction requires interpretation of Wyoming statutes and administrative rules and regulations, which are also matters of law reviewed de novo. Tarver v. City of Sheridan Bd. of Adjustments, 2014 WY 71, ¶ 20, 327 P.3d 76, 83 (Wyo. 2014) () (citing J & T Props., LLC v. Gallagher, 2011 WY 112, 256 P.3d 522 (Wyo. 2011) (statutes), and Laramie Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Cook, 2012 WY 47, 272 P.3d 966 (Wyo. 2012) (administrative regulations)). In interpreting statutes, we search for the legislature's intent. Miller v. Life Care Ctrs., 2020 WY 155, ¶ 26, 478 P.3d 164, 171 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Vance v. City of Laramie, 2016 WY 106, ¶ 12, 382 P.3d 1104, 1106 (Wyo. 2016)). "When the statutory language is 'sufficiently clear and unambiguous'" to allow us to discern that intent, "we apply 'the words according to their ordinary and obvious meaning.'" Williams v. Sundstrom, 2016 WY 122, ¶ 19, 385 P.3d 789, 794 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting DB v. State (In re CRA), 2016 WY 24, ¶ 15, 368 P.3d 294, 298 (Wyo. 2016)). "The rules of statutory interpretation also apply to the interpretation of administrative rules and regulations." State ex rel. Wyo. Dep't of Rev. v. Buggy Bath Unlimited, Inc., 2001 WY 27, ¶ 6, 18 P.3d 1182, 1185 (Wyo. 2001) ().
[¶10] When an employee disagrees with the Division's determination of his worker's compensation claim, he may object and request a contested case hearing. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-601(a), (b), (k) (LexisNexis 2021). Upon receipt of an employee's request for a hearing, the Division "shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial