Sheneman v. Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation Internal Hearing Unit
| Decision Date | 01 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-150,97-150 |
| Parties | Frank SHENEMAN, Appellant (Petitioner), v. DIVISION OF WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION INTERNAL HEARING UNIT, Department Of Employment, State Of Wyoming, Appellee (Respondent). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Donald L. Painter, Casper, for Appellant.
William U. Hill, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Bernard P. Haggerty, Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, for Appellee.
Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ., and DONNELL, District Judge.
The primary issue is whether the Internal Hearing Unit of the Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation (Division) was legally formed and whether it had jurisdiction to decide if Frank Sheneman's request for a hearing to contest the Division's final determination denying him worker's compensation benefits was timely. Frank Sheneman asserts the issue of timely filing was required to be heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings because the Workers' Compensation Rules and Regulations authorizing the Internal Hearing Unit were not in effect on the date of his injury. The two remaining issues ask whether the Internal Hearing Unit's finding was supported by substantial evidence and whether the procedure and order were in accordance with law. We affirm the district court's order which held the Division legally created the Internal Hearing Unit. We hold the Internal Hearing Unit had jurisdiction over the procedural determination and Frank Sheneman did not have a substantive right to a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings. In addition, we affirm the final agency order of the Department of Employment.
Appellant, Frank Sheneman (Sheneman), presents these issues for review:
1. Whether an Internal Hearing Unit legally exists.
2. Whether the Internal Hearing Unit has jurisdiction to take the administrative action complained of.
3. Whether the Internal Hearing Unit can legally take action on an injury occurring prior to creation of the Internal Hearing Unit.
4. Whether the Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence.
5. Whether the Final Agency Order complained of is contrary to law.
The Division, as appellee, states the issues in this manner:
I. The Appellant has never served the Petition for Review or any of his briefs on the employer. Should this appeal be dismissed?
A. Did the Division have authority to adopt the internal hearing procedure?
B. Was the application of the procedure to the Employee's pending case in accordance with law?
C. Was the Hearing Officer's decision supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law?
II. FACTS
On July 28, 1995, 1 Sheneman sustained an injury which he claims is compensable under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. On August 23, 1995, the Division sent an Initial Review, Notice of Lack of Information to Sheneman, which provided, in pertinent part:
This is not a denial of benefits. The Workers' Compensation Division has received and reviewed your claim and needs the following information to make a determination:
* * *
d. The Division needs all medical records, notes/documentation for the past 5 years.
e. The employer has objected to this injury * * *.
Please contact your treating health care provider about submitting medical records for your injury.
Please provide the Division with the requested information on or before September 19, 1995 and submit any other additional information you believe may be important to help determine whether or not benefits should be paid.
(Emphasis in original.)
Sheneman received the Initial Review three or four days after it was mailed and took it to his attorney who advised him to get a letter from his treating physician explaining the doctor's opinion regarding the injury. Sheneman contacted his physician and requested a letter. The doctor dictated the letter which was dated August 30, 1995. According to Sheneman, however, he did not receive it until October 18 due to a backlog of work at the doctor's office.
When the Division did not receive the information it requested by September 19, it issued its Final Determination on September 20, 1995, which stated in pertinent part:
The Workers' Compensation Division has reviewed your claim and issued an initial review dated August 23, 1995, requesting the information listed below and has yet to receive any of the information and has determined that we cannot approve payment of benefits for the following reason(s):
Benefits for employment-related coronary conditions except those directly and solely * * *
caused by an injury, are not payable unless the employee establishes by competent medical authority that:
d. The Division needs all medical records, notes/documentation for the past 5 years.
e. Your employer is still objecting to this injury.
Please contact your treating health care provider about submitting medical records for your injury.
Either the employee or the employer may object to this determination and request a hearing. Affected parties have a right to a hearing before a hearing examiner as provided by the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Act and to legal representation. We must receive a written request, stating your reason(s) for objecting on or before October 16, 1995. If a timely written request for hearing is not filed with this division, the final determination by the Division pursuant to W.S. 27-14-601(k)[ 2] shall not be subject to further administrative or judicial review.
(Emphasis in original.)
According to Sheneman, the August 30, 1995 letter from his physician, received on October 18, 1995, stated in part:
In summary, it appears that the patient does have labile hypertension. Any type of stress will exacerbate the situation and cause more myocardial ischemia and the angina symptoms that he developed. Based on the patient's symptoms and activity at the time of his angina, it appears that the most recent hospitalization and evaluation were stress related and occurred while on the job. This certainly appears to be work related on this particular occasion. He is currently undergoing intensive medical treatment to improve his hypertension, therefore, improve the risk of having further anginal symptoms.
Sheneman took the letter to his attorney who forwarded the physician's letter along with a cover letter to the Division. The Division received both letters on October 19, 1995.
The Division issued a Notification of Late Response to Final Determination to Sheneman on October 24, 1995, which said:
The Division has received your response to our Final Determination dated September 20, 1995. The response was due in our office no later than October 16, 1995 and was not received by the Division until October 19, 1995. (Wyoming Statute 27-14-601(k)(iv)).
If timely written request for hearing is not filed, the final determination by the Division shall not be subject to further administrative or judicial review pursuant to W.S. 27-14-601(k)(vi).
The Division will not be referring this matter to hearing.
Sheneman took the Notification of Late Response to Final Determination to a new attorney who wrote a letter dated November 1, 1995 to the Division. The letter explained that Sheneman's response was late because he was waiting to receive a medical report from his doctor who was out of town. The letter included a request that the matter be referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Division granted Sheneman a hearing before its Internal Hearing Unit to consider the timeliness of his written objection. Following the hearing by the officer of the Internal Hearing Unit, the Division issued its Hearing Officer's Report and Recommended Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order on July 15, 1996. The Hearing Officer's Report stated, in pertinent part:
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent issued a Final Determination dated September 20, 1995 * * *;
2. Respondent mailed the Final Determination to Frank Sheneman, petitioner, at this correct address * * *;
3. Petitioner received the Final Determination at the above address;
4. The Final Determination required a response to be received by the Division on or before October 16, 1995;
5. The Final Determination advised the interested parties in pertinent part that: "...
6. The Division did not receive a written request from petitioner, objecting or requesting a hearing on or before October 16, 1995;
7. The Division's Final Determination dated September 20, 1995, properly advised the petitioner of the deadlines for a timely response pursuant to W.S. §§ 27-14-601(k)(iv) (15 working days) and Ch. 1 § 4(c) of the Rules and Regulations ();
8. The Division's Final Determination dated September 20, 1995, properly advised petitioner of his rights pursuant to W.S. § 27-14-601(k)(iii);
9. The petitioner did not respond to the Division's Final Determination within the time allowed by law;
10. The Final Determination is not subject to further administrative or judicial review pursuant to W.S. § 27-14-601(k)(vi).
(Emphasis in original.)
Sheneman filed a Petition for Review of the Department of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean v. State
...583, 585 (Wyo.1965). We have continued to adhere to these definitions. See, for example, Sheneman v. Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation Internal Hearing Unit, 956 P.2d 344, 350 (Wyo.1998) and Smithco Engineering, Inc. v. International Fabricators, Inc., 775 P.2d 1011, 1018 (Wyo.19......
-
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Borchert
...evidence that a reasonable mind can accept as adequate to support an agency's conclusions." Sheneman v. Div. of Workers' Safety and Comp. Internal Hearing Unit, 956 P.2d 344, 348 (Wyo.1998) (citing Casper Oil Co. v. Evenson, 888 P.2d 221, 224 (Wyo.1995)). This Court will not substitute its ......
-
Appleby v. WORKERS'SAFETY & COMP. DIV.
...however, that the Division's determination on the timeliness of a request for hearing is not reviewable. Sheneman v. Div. of Workers' Safety and Comp., 956 P.2d 344, 351 (Wyo.1998). Indeed, Sheneman went on to review such a timeliness [¶ 12] The term "final determination" has a specialized ......
-
US West Communications, Inc. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
...rules, we look to the statute as a whole, reading each component part in pari materia. Sheneman v. Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation Internal Hearing Unit, 956 P.2d 344, 349 (Wyo.1998) (quoting Painter v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div., 931 P.2d 953, 955 (Wyo.19......