Tegeler v. State, S–12–0205.
| Decision Date | 04 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. S–12–0205.,S–12–0205. |
| Citation | 298 P.3d 173 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Lana M. TEGELER, Appellant (Claimant/Petitioner), v. STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Representing Appellant: Donna D. Domonkos, Domonkos Law Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.
Before KITE, C.J., HILL, BURKE, DAVIS, JJ., and GOLDEN, J., Retired.
[¶ 1] Appellant, Lana Tegeler, challenges a decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) denying her Motion to Reopen Case Pursuant to W.R.C.P. 60(b). She sought review of that decision in district court and the district court affirmed. She appealed to this Court. We also affirm.
[¶ 2] Ms. Tegeler presents the following issue:
Whether the Office of Administrative Hearing's decision to deny Ms. Tegeler's motion to reopen the case is arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with the law.
The Division states the issue as follows:
Did the hearing examiner abuse his discretion in denying Ms. Tegeler's motion seeking relief under W.R.C.P. 60(b)?
[¶ 3] Ms. Tegeler injured her neck and shoulder in a work-related accident on October 18, 2008. The Division approved Ms. Tegeler's application for temporary total disability benefits, and she received those benefits for twenty-four months. In July, 2010, the Division received two bills from Central Wyoming Neurosurgery, LLC, in the amounts of $4,357.00 and $189.00, for an MRI and X-ray of Ms. Tegeler's lumbar spine. The Division issued two final determinations denying payment of those medical bills, noting that “This case is only open for the left shoulder and neck injury.” Ms. Tegeler objected to the Division's final determinations, and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested case hearing.
[¶ 4] After the contested case hearing, the hearing examiner issued an order upholding the Division's denial of benefits. The hearing examiner considered Ms. Tegeler's testimony that, two days after her accident, her low back felt like there were hot needles in it and that it was very painful to walk up stairs. She also testified that she could not sit in a chair due to the severity of her lower back pain, and that these symptoms continued for two years. This testimony was consistent with Ms. Tegeler's June 8, 2011 deposition testimony, but conflicted with her testimony at an earlier deposition held on December 10, 2009. In the earlier deposition, Ms. Tegeler made no complaints of low back pain. Additionally, the hearing examiner found that Ms. Tegeler's testimony was contradicted by evidence in the record which demonstrated that (1) she did not complain of back pain when she sought treatment at the Coalition Family Health Center four days after her injury, (2) Ms. Tegeler identified only her neck and shoulder as injured body parts on her Report of Injury form, (3) Ms. Tegeler saw her treating physician six times between November 20, 2008 and April 22, 2010, but never presented any complaints of back pain, and (4) Ms. Tegeler's first report of back pain was not made until June 3, 2010. In light of this evidence, the hearing examiner concluded that Ms. Tegeler's testimony regarding her lower back symptoms was inconsistent and that there was no evidence to corroborate her testimony that she had reported back pain to her treating physician following her workplace accident.
[¶ 5] Ms. Tegeler appealed the OAH's decision to the district court. While on review in the district court, Ms. Tegeler's appellate counsel discovered documentation of a physical therapy session held approximately one month after Ms. Tegeler's workplace accident.1 That record indicated that she was experiencing pain “in the middle and center of her back” and an “annoyance in her back.” She filed a motion in district court to supplement the record with the physical therapy record. That motion was denied. Ms. Tegeler then voluntarily dismissed her appeal.
[¶ 6] On February 7, 2012, Ms. Tegeler initiated the present action by filing a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from final judgment in the Office of Administrative Hearings based on the physical therapy record. She claimed that the medical record contradicted the OAH's finding that there was no corroborating evidence to support Ms. Tegeler's testimony at the contested case hearing. Ms. Tegeler asserted that “considering the relevancy of the medical notes, its absence in the record on appeal must mean it was a mistake or inadvertently overlooked by Claimant's hearing counsel.”
[¶ 7] The OAH denied Ms. Tegeler's Rule 60(b) motion, reasoning as follows:
2. The Wyoming Supreme Court has held that in order to be entitled to relief under W.R.C.P. 60(b), the party seeking relief must demonstrate (1) a lack of prejudice to the appellee; (2) a meritorious defense; and (3) a lack of culpable conduct. Vanasse v. Ramsay, 847 P.2d 993, 998 (Wyo.1993), quoting Carlson v. Carlson, 836 P.2d 297, 301–306 (Wyo.1992). Mistake of counsel is not sufficient to establish the lack of culpable conduct necessary. Orosco v. Schabron, 9 P.3d 264, 268 (Wyo.2000).
Ms. Tegeler appealed the denial of her motion, and the district court affirmed the OAH's decision. Ms. Tegeler filed a timely appeal from the district court's order.
[¶ 8] Pursuant to the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, a reviewing court shall “Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16–3–114(c)(ii)(A) (LexisNexis 2011). We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion:
Review of a court's decision on a Rule 60(b) motion is confined to a determination of whether the court abused its discretion, and it is the movant's burden to bring his cause within the claimed grounds of relief and to substantiate these claims with adequate proof. We will reverse an order denying relief under Rule 60(b) only if the trial court clearly was wrong.
In re Injury to Seevers, 720 P.2d 899, 901 (Wyo.1986); Vanasse v. Ramsay, 847 P.2d 993, 996 (Wyo.1993).
[¶ 9] In her motion for relief from the OAH's final judgment, Ms. Tegeler claimed that the failure to produce evidence corroborating her complaints of lower-back pain constituted “mistake” or “inadvertence,” justifying relief under W.R.C.P. 60(b)(1). That rule provides, in part, as follows:
Rule 60. Relief from judgment or order.
... (b) Other reasons.—On motion, and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
On appeal, Ms. Tegeler renews her claim that relief is warranted under Rule 60(b) because the physical therapy record indicating that she experienced back pain following her workplace accident “was either mistakenly overlooked or inadvertently not relied upon by trial counsel.” However,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruegman v. Bruegman
..., 2014 WY 29, ¶ 68, 319 P.3d 116, 132 (Wyo. 2014) ; Tegeler v. State ex rel. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div. , 2013 WY 40, ¶ 11, 298 P.3d 173, 176-77 (Wyo. 2013) ; Hochhalter v. Great W. Enterprises, Inc. , 708 P.2d 666, 670 (Wyo. 1985). Moreover, there is no evidence that Father withheld the ......
-
Leonard v. State, S–14–0111.
...misconduct, and that Mr. Leonard failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his counsel's performance was deficient. Id. at ¶ 15, 298 P.3d at 173.[¶ 4] After serving approximately eight months of his sentence, Mr. Leonard, acting pro se, filed an Affidavit and a Motion for Sentence Red......
-
Leonard v. State
...misconduct, and that Mr. Leonard failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his counsel's performance was deficient. Id. at ¶ 15, 298 P.3d at 173. [¶ 4] After serving approximately eight months of his sentence, Mr. Leonard, acting pro se, filed an Affidavit and a Motion for Sentence Re......