Tata Chems. Soda Ash Partners, Ltd. v. Vinson (In re Worker's Comp. Claim of Vinson)

• Decision Date: 28 September 2020
• Docket Number: S-19-0086,S-20-0038
• Citation: 2020 WY 126
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF MICHAEL VINSON: TATA CHEMICALS SODA ASH PARTNERS, LTD, Appellant (Respondent), v. MICHAEL VINSON, Appellee (Petitioner).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

2020 WY 126

IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF MICHAEL VINSON:

TATA CHEMICALS SODA ASH PARTNERS, LTD, Appellant (Respondent), v. MICHAEL VINSON, Appellee (Petitioner).

S-19-0086

S-20-0038

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

APRIL TERM, A.D. 2020

September 28, 2020

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County

The Honorable Suzannah G. Robinson, Judge

Representing Appellant:

Stephen H. Kline, Kline Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee:

Donna D. Domonkos, Domonkos Law Office, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] Michael Vinson injured his right hand on a locker while working for Tata Chemicals Soda Ash Partners, Ltd. (Tata) and contracted a serious bacterial infection. The Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division (Division) awarded benefits but the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) decided Mr. Vinson's injuries were not compensable because they were excluded from coverage under the "illness or communicable disease" exclusion. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(A) (LexisNexis 2019). Mr. Vinson filed an untimely Petition for Review with the district court. The district court concluded Mr. Vinson was entitled to an extension of time to file his Petition because he had established excusable neglect based on an undue delay in the mail. It also decided Mr. Vinson was entitled to benefits because the "illness or communicable disease" exclusion did not apply. Tata appeals from the district court's excusable neglect determination (Appeal No. S-20-0038) and its decision concerning Mr. Vinson's eligibility for benefits (Appeal No. S-19-0086). We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] We restate the issues as:

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding Mr. Vinson had established excusable neglect justifying an extension of time to file his Petition for Review?

2. Is the OAH's decision that the "illness or communicable disease" exclusion applied supported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law?

FACTS

[¶3] On June 10, 2016, Mr. Vinson was working underground at Tata's trona mine near Green River. Ten minutes before his shift ended, Mr. Vinson exited the mine and, as he did after every shift, took a shower in the employee locker room. After his shower, he hung his towel in his employee locker. While doing so, he scraped the knuckle of his right index finger on the locker. The wound bled "for a little bit and stopped." He did not report the injury to Tata that day.

[¶4] The next day was Saturday and Mr. Vinson did not work. He woke up late and played golf on the Internet. Later that afternoon, he rode his motorcycle from his home in Rock Springs to a picnic in Green River. Before he left, he told his wife "his knuckle was kind of red from hitting it on the locker at work." Mr. Vinson stayed at the picnic for only an hour because he started feeling nauseous. Once home, he noticed his right hand was"swollen and red." He laid down in his bed and stayed there the rest of the night. After lying down, Mr. Vinson recalls very little other than he had chills and was "shivering" and "shaking" throughout the night.

[¶5] The next day, Mr. Vinson's wife found him in bed with his right hand and arm swollen up to near his elbow; he "wasn't making a lot of sense" and was talking to himself. With the help of her son and son-in-law, she took Mr. Vinson to the local emergency room. He was life-flighted to the University of Utah hospital in Salt Lake City, where he was diagnosed with necrotizing fasciitis due to Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus (Strep A), more commonly known as flesh-eating bacteria.¹ He stayed at the hospital for over a month, undergoing aggressive antibiotic therapy, multiple surgical debridements to achieve control over the infection, and skin grafting. Although he will have some scarring from the skin grafting, he will eventually regain full strength in his right arm.

[¶6] Mr. Vinson filed for workers' compensation benefits with the Division. In the "Report of Injury," he claimed he injured his right hand by hitting it on the corner of a locker. The Division found Mr. Vinson's injury to be compensable and awarded him benefits. Tata objected, arguing Mr. Vinson's medical condition was not an "injury" as defined by § 27-14-102(a)(xi) because the infection did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, and requested a contested case hearing. The Division referred the matter to the OAH.

[¶7] In the OAH, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Relevant here, Tata argued Mr. Vinson's injuries were not compensable because they were excluded from coverage under the "illness or communicable disease" and "day-to-day living" exclusions. See § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(A), (G). The parties agreed no hearing was necessary and the case could be decided on the briefs and evidence presented.

[¶8] The OAH found and concluded Mr. Vinson had "proved by a preponderance of the evidence his June 10, 2016 knuckle scrape and resulting Strep A infection were work-related injuries within the definition of Wyoming Statute § 27-14-102(a)(xi) (LexisNexis)." It rejected Tata's reliance on the "day-to-day living" exclusion but decided Tata had shown Mr. Vinson's injury was excluded from coverage under the "illness or communicable disease" exclusion. In deciding the latter exclusion applied, the OAH described the injury for which Mr. Vinson was seeking benefits as the "Strep A bacterial infection and necrotizing fasciitis" and specifically rejected Mr. Vinson and the Division's argument that the injury was the knuckle abrasion.

[¶9] Mr. Vinson filed a "Petition for Judicial Review of Administrative Action" (Petition) with the district court pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure (W.R.A.P.) 12. The district court decided the OAH's decision that the "illness or communicable disease" exclusion applied was not in accordance with law. It disagreed with the OAH that the injury for which Mr. Vinson sought compensation was the Strep A infection and necrotizing fasciitis. It concluded the injury for which Mr. Vinson sought compensation was the "scrape which the OAH has found to be a compensable injury." Because the OAH found a causal connection between the wound and the infection, the court decided "the infection was a compensable consequence of the original work-related scrape injury." It determined the "illness or communicable disease" exclusion did not apply because "[Mr.] Vinson's infected scrape is not similar to an ordinary 'illness or communicable disease' such as a cold or flu."

[¶10] Tata appealed (Appeal No. S-19-0086). It claimed the OAH correctly applied the "illness or communicable disease" exclusion but erred in not applying the "day-to-day living" exclusion. It also argued for the first time that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Vinson's Petition because it was not filed within 30 days of the OAH's decision as required by W.R.A.P. 12.04(a). We decided the Petition was due on March 5, 2018, but was not filed until March 6, 2018, one day late. See Matter of Vinson (Vinson I), 2019 WY 107, ¶ 7, 450 P.3d 234, 236 (Wyo. 2019). While the timely filing of a petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional, we recognized W.R.A.P. 12.04(b) allows a district court to extend the deadline for filing such petition upon a showing of excusable neglect. Id., ¶ 8, 450 P.3d at 236. Because the district court's decision did not address the issue and the record did not reveal whether the issue had been considered, we remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether excusable neglect extended the time Mr. Vinson had to file his Petition. Id.

[¶11] On remand, the district court found the issue to be a "close call" but concluded Mr. Vinson had established excusable neglect based on an unreasonable delay in the mail. It extended the time to file his Petition to March 6, 2018, rendering his Petition timely. Tata again appealed, this time from the district court's finding of excusable neglect (Appeal No. S-20-0038). We consolidated the appeals.

DISCUSSION

1. Excusable Neglect

[¶12] Tata argues the district court abused its discretion in concluding Mr. Vinson established excusable neglect justifying an extension of time in which to file his Petition. It contends a reasonably prudent lawyer faced with the filing deadline in this case would not have relied solely on mailing the Petition with the United States Postal Service (USPS)but rather would have followed up with the district court to ensure it arrived on time and, if not, taken other measures to timely file it.

a. Standard of Review

[¶13] The "timely filing of a petition for review of administrative action is mandatory and jurisdictional." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 2007 WY 62, ¶ 7, 155 P.3d 1041, 1043 (Wyo. 2007) (citations omitted). While we normally review jurisdictional issues de novo, we review for an abuse of discretion a district court's decision as to whether to extend the time for filing a petition for review based on a showing of excusable neglect. Id., ¶ 6, 155 P.3d at 1043 (citation omitted). In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could "reasonably conclude as it did." Humphrey v. Humphrey, 2007 WY 72, ¶ 7, 157 P.3d 451, 453 (Wyo. 2007) (citation omitted).

b. Discussion

[¶14] W.R.A.P. 12.04(a) requires a petition for judicial review of an administrative action to be filed in the district court "within 30 days after service upon all ...