Prokop v. Hockhalter
| Decision Date | 28 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-170.,05-170. |
| Citation | 137 P.3d 131,2006 WY 75 |
| Parties | Robert J. PROKOP, M.D., Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Tim HOCKHALTER; Geri Hockhalter; Tom McJunkin; and Timber Creek Outfitters, Appellees, (Defendants). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Robert J. Prokop, M.D., pro se, Wilber, Nebraska.
Representing Appellees: Monty Barnett and James M. Meseck, of White and Steele, Denver, Colorado.
Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
[¶ 1] This case comes before this Court as two certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The first question asks us to consider whether the two-year statute of limitations contained in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107(a) (LexisNexis 2005) applies to actions against licensed outfitters and professional hunting guides. If we conclude that the two-year limitations period does apply, the second question asks us to consider whether it applies to both contract and tort claims.
[¶ 2] The certified questions are as follows:
1. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 23-2-407 provides for licensing outfitters and professional guides. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107(a) requires that actions "arising from an act, error or omission in the rendering of licensed or certified professional or health care services be brought within . . . two (2) years of the date of the alleged act." Does this two-year statute of limitations apply to actions against licensed outfitters and professional guides?
2. The Wyoming Supreme Court has referred to § 1-3-107(a) as "the professional malpractice statute," and stated that "the premise of professional malpractice is usually based in tort." See Richardson Assocs. v. Lincoln-Devore, Inc., 806 P.2d 790, 800 (Wyo.1991). If the two-year limitation period applies to actions against outfitters and professional guides, does it apply to contract claims as well as tort claims?
[¶ 3] Tim and Geri Hockhalter are the owners and operators of Timber Creek Outfitters. Timber Creek Outfitters is licensed as an outfitter by the State of Wyoming Board of Outfitters and Professional Guides ("the Board"). Tim Hockhalter and Tom McJunkin are licensed as professional hunting guides.
[¶ 4] Robert Prokop, M.D., hired Timber Creek Outfitters to take him on a guided bighorn sheep hunt near Cody, Wyoming. The hunting trip commenced on September 23, 2001. Mr. McJunkin acted as Dr. Prokop's guide. On September 26, 2001, Dr. Prokop terminated his hunt. He did not harvest a bighorn sheep during the hunt.
[¶ 5] On October 1, 2003, Dr. Prokop filed a pro se complaint in federal district court against Timber Creek Outfitters, Tim and Geri Hockhalter, and Tom McJunkin. He asserted claims for breach of contract, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The federal district court granted summary judgment based on Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107(a), the two-year statute of limitations applicable to professional services. Dr. Prokop appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The tenth circuit presented certified questions to us, which we agreed to answer.
[¶ 6] We review certified questions pursuant to W.R.A.P. 11. According to Rule 11.01, we may answer a question of law "which may be determinative of the cause" pending in the certifying court and "concerning which it appears there is no controlling precedent" from this Court. Id. "[Q]uestions of the application of the law, including identification of the correct rule, are considered de novo." Pinnacle Bank v. Villa, 2004 WY 150, ¶ 5, 100 P.3d 1287, 1289 (Wyo.2004) (quoting EOG Resources, Inc. v. State, 2003 WY 34, ¶ 7, 64 P.3d 757, [759] (Wyo.2003)).
[¶ 7] The first certified question asks us to determine whether the two-year statute of limitations contained in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107(a) applies to licensed outfitters and professional guides. Section 1-3-107(a) provides, in relevant part:
(a) A cause of action arising from an act, error or omission in the rendering of licensed or certified professional or health care services shall be brought within the greater of the following times:
(i) Within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission, except that a cause of action may be instituted not more than two (2) years after discovery of the alleged act, error or omission, if the claimant can establish that the alleged act, error or omission was:
(A) Not reasonably discoverable within a two (2) year period; or
(B) The claimant failed to discover the alleged act, error or omission within the two (2) year period despite the exercise of due diligence.
While this Court has never addressed the question, in Walters v. Grand Teton Crest Outfitters, Inc., 804 F.Supp. 1442 (D.Wyo. 1992), the federal district court held that a licensed outfitter is not a professional and, therefore, the two-year statute of limitations did not apply. Dr. Prokop argues that the rationale articulated in Walters should be applied by this Court. Timber Creek Outfitters, the Hockhalters, and Mr. McJunkin, on the other hand, urge us to adopt the reasoning we applied in Rawlinson v. Greer, 2003 WY 28, ¶¶ 15-16, 64 P.3d 120, 123-24 (Wyo.2003), where we concluded that realtors are professionals subject to the two-year statute of limitations.
[¶ 8] The Walters case predated our decision in Rawlinson and, at the time, the appropriate analysis for determining whether someone fell within the "professional" category for the purposes of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107(a) had not been fully developed by this Court. In Walters, the court looked to the definition of "professional" found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 9-2-1803(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 1991) to determine whether an outfitter would be considered a professional. That statute requires at least one year of specialized post-secondary education in order to fall within the professional category. Because no specific schooling is required for an outfitter to obtain its license, the court concluded that an outfitter was not a professional and, therefore, the two-year statute of limitations for professionals was inapplicable. Walters, 804 F.Supp. at 1446.
[¶ 9] Section 9-2-1803(a)(iii) defines the term "professional" as it is used in the Wyoming Professional Review Panel Act, 9-2-1801 et seq., not as it is used in the Code of Civil Procedure, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107(a), where the two-year limitations period for professionals is found. In Rawlinson, ¶ 14, 64 P.3d at 123, we did not rely upon § 9-2-1803(a)(iii) when we set forth the analytical framework for determining whether someone is a "licensed . . . or certified professional" within the meaning of § 1-3-107(a). Rather, we applied this Court's well-settled rules of statutory interpretation:
[W]e must apply our well established test for interpreting statutes:
We first decide whether the statute is clear or ambiguous. This Court makes that determination as a matter of law. 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.
If we determine that a statute is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain language of the statute.
We begin by making an inquiry respecting the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their arrangement and connection. We construe the statute as a whole, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe together all parts of the statute in pari materia.
If we determine that the statute is ambiguous, we resort to general principles of statutory construction to determine the legislature's intent.
Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In applying this analysis in the context of realtors, we concluded that "because licensure is required before a person may work in the real estate profession, realtors would seem to fall under the plain language of § 1-3-107(a)." Id., ¶ 16, 64 P.3d at 124. In Rawlinson we also pointed out that the § 1-3-107(a) two-year statute of limitations has been applied to a number of other types of licensed professionals, including physicians, attorneys, surveyors, accountants, and chiropractors. Id., ¶ 15, 64 P.3d at 123-24 ().
[¶ 10] The Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Act requires that outfitters and guides obtain a license and sets forth qualifications necessary for licensure:
§ 23-2-407. License required for outfitters and professional guides.
(a) No person shall hold himself out as, engage in the business of or act in the capacity of an outfitter or shall engage in the occupation of a professional guide as an independent contractor or as an agent or employee, unless he is licensed as an outfitter or professional guide pursuant to this act.
(b) No person engaged in the business of or acting in the capacity of an outfitter or a professional guide is entitled to maintain an action for compensation of outfitting or guiding services provided to any other person unless he is licensed under this act at the time of providing services.
Outfitters and guides are also regulated by the State through the Board of Outfitters and Professional Guides. See, e.g., Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 23-2-411 & 23-2-413 (LexisNexis 2005) ().
[¶ 11] The plain language of the Wyoming...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
...companies that do business in California now are on notice that, with regard to future conduct, they are subject to California law [137 P.3d 131] with regard to the recording of telephone conversations made to or received from California, and that the full range of civil sanctions afforded ......
-
Nancy Hall v. Park County, S-10-0015.
...The provisions of the more specific WGCA take precedence over the provisions of the more general savings statute. See Prokop v. Hockhalter, 2006 WY 75, ¶ 14, 137 P.3d 131, 135 (Wyo.2006) (specific statute of limitations for professionals governs over more general statute of limitations); se......
-
Bylin v. Billings
...against Mr. Billings. While preparing their response, the defendants discovered a 2006 Wyoming Supreme Court decision, Prokop v. Hockhalter, 137 P.3d 131 (Wyo.2006), holding that the two-year Wyoming Professional Malpractice Statute of Limitations, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107(a),3 applies to ......
- Hopkins v. State, S-18-0262