Routh v. State, ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1998
• Docket Number: No. 96-291,96-291
• Citation: 952 P.2d 1108
• Parties: Claude V. ROUTH, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 1108

952 P.2d 1108

Claude V. ROUTH, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Defendant).

No. 96-291.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Jan. 20, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1998.

George Santini of Santini Law Offices, Terry W. Mackey of Hickey, Mackey, Evans, Walker & Stewart (argued), Cheyenne, Joel W. Howell, III, Jackson, MS, for Appellant.

William U. Hill, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General (argued), for Appellee.

Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

THOMAS, Justice.

The only issue before the Court in this case is whether, pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, full faith and credit must be afforded to a judgment entered in a Mississippi court against the Workers' Compensation Division (the Division), an agency of the State of Wyoming. Claude V. Routh (Routh) was injured in Wyoming in November of 1985 while working in covered employment under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. WYO. STAT. §§ 27-12-101 to -804 (1983). After receiving benefits in the form of temporary total disability payments and the payment of medical claims, while residing in Mississippi, Routh sued the Division in Mississippi. The Division did not appear, and a default judgment was entered in the Mississippi court in the gross amount of $1,923,400.50 ¹ with interest and costs. Routh filed the Mississippi Judgment in Wyoming, and the Division appeared to collaterally attack that judgment. The Division filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in which it asserted lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant by the Mississippi court; sovereign immunity protecting it from the Mississippi action; and the proposition that under Wyoming law the Worker's Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. The district court entered an Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that "the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on all counts." There is no reversible error in the ruling of the district court, and the Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is affirmed.

In the Appellant's Brief, which Routh filed, the issue is stated as:

I. Is the judgment of the Mississippi Circuit Court entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of Wyoming?

In the Brief of Appellee, filed by the State of Wyoming, the issues are defined in this way:

A. Whether the mailing of checks and other correspondence to Claimant in Mississippi, in response to Claimant's applications for benefits and requests for information, constituted sufficient contacts with Mississippi to permit its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division (Division).

B. Whether the Mississippi court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a claim for workers' compensation benefits, and claims of emotional distress and bad faith stemming from the Division's administration of Claimant's application for benefits under the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Act, where:

Claimant resided in and was employed in Wyoming when he suffered his work-related injuries;

Claimant suffered the work-related injuries in Wyoming; and

Claimant's employer was principally located in Wyoming.

C. Even assuming the State had waived its sovereign immunity, was the action was [sic] brought and judgment obtained against defendant in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act.

In Appellant's Reply Brief, Routh did not specify any issues, but stated these additional arguments:

I. Appellee had actual knowledge of the Mississippi court action and waived any defect in the giving of notice by its failure to file an answer or otherwise appear in the Mississippi court procedures.

II. The Mississippi court judgment is entitled to full faith and credit and is not subject to collateral attack in the present action.

In November of 1985, Routh suffered a work-related injury while employed as a pipe fitter on a construction project in Lincoln County, and he reported the injury on November 18, 1985. At the time of his injury, Routh was a resident of Wyoming, and he was employed here by a Wyoming employer. Following his report of the injury, Routh began to receive medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. WYO. STAT. § 27-12-101 to -804. He received temporary total disability benefits for various periods of time that totaled 391 days. While he was receiving benefits, Routh moved to Mississippi, and he continued to receive worker's compensation benefits for this work-related injury in that state.

In 1987 and 1988, the Division received notice from Routh's treating physicians that he was at or approaching maximum medical improvement. The Division was not successful in obtaining from the treating physicians a rating of Routh's disability according to Wyoming's statutes, and it then requested that he come to Wyoming for an evaluation for permanent partial disability benefits. The Division arranged for a physical examination at the Gottsche Center in Thermopolis, and it paid for Routh's transportation and expenses for the trip from Mississippi to Wyoming in July of 1988. The examining physician in Wyoming rated Routh's permanent partial disability as 4% of the whole body.

Routh never did file a claim with the Division for permanent partial disability at a 4% level or any other level. It appears that Routh decided that he was permanently totally disabled, and on February 8, 1990, he filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. He sought recovery of benefits under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act, and also damages for the torts of bad faith and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Routh advised the Mississippi court that it had jurisdiction over the Division pursuant to service of process under Mississippi's long-arm statute. MISS. CODE ANN. § 13-3-57 (1972). The Division did not appear and answer in the case in Mississippi, and a default was entered. Later the Mississippi court entered a default judgment, acknowledging it was required to apply Wyoming law. The Mississippi court ruled that Routh was entitled to benefits under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act and that he could recover damages for the torts of bad faith and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. A Judgment then was entered on August 19, 1992 in the Mississippi court against the Division in the total amount of $1,923,400.50.

Routh then brought the Mississippi judgment to Wyoming, where on August 11, 1994 he enrolled it in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Wyoming, in and for Laramie County, pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. WYO. STAT. § 1-17-701 to -707 (1988). The Division appeared in the Wyoming district court, and, after failing to secure relief by a motion to dismiss, presented a motion for summary judgment. The Division asserted as grounds for its motion the lack of personal jurisdiction over the Division by the court in Mississippi; the lack of subject matter jurisdiction by the court in Mississippi; the failure of Routh to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act; and the absence of any provision in the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act abrogating sovereign immunity with respect to the tort claims included in the Mississippi award. The district court granted the Division's motion for summary judgment, and Routh has taken this appeal from the Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States ² requires that the final judgments and public acts of one state be afforded full faith and credit in every other state. Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 270, 100 S.Ct. 2647, 2655, 65 L.Ed.2d 757 (U.S.Dist.Col.1980); We have captured this proposition by ruling:

The United States Supreme Court has held that full faith and credit "generally requires every State to give a judgment at least the res judicata effect which the judgment would be accorded in the State which rendered it." A foreign judgment will be enforced to its full extent regardless of any errors or irregularities it may contain.

Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Dunkelberger, 918 P.2d 987, 991, in which we quoted with approval from Marworth, Inc. v. McGuire, 810 P.2d 653, 655-56 (Colo.1991). In Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 880 P.2d 103, 106 (Wyo.1994), we also followed the Marworth opinion. Our statute defines a foreign judgment for purposes of registration as:

In this act, "foreign judgment" means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state.

WYO. STAT. § 1-17-702 (1988). A clear exception to the requirements of the full faith and credit clause of Constitution of the United States is the proposition that the foreign judgment must be valid and the court entering that judgment must have had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (U.S.Okla.1980); International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (U.S.Wash.1945).

One theory espoused by the Division, in this court and in the district court, is that the court in Mississippi never obtained personal jurisdiction over the Division. We review issues relating to personal jurisdiction as a matter of law. Global Shipping & Trading, Ltd. v. Verkhnesaldincky Metallurgic Co., 892 P.2d 143, 146 (Wyo.1995); Eddy v. Oukrop, 784 P.2d 610 (Wyo.1989). The parties in their briefs have focused upon the issue of sufficient minimum contacts by the Division in Mississippi to satisfy the due...