Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

While working as the municipal court judge for the town of Diamondville, Wyoming, Appellant slipped and fell on the icy outdoor steps of the town hall. Due to pain in her lower back, Appellant underwent back surgery in 2009. The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division paid for this surgery, along with temporary disability benefits. In 2011, Appellant experienced acute onset of pain in her lower back and left leg. Appellant underwent surgery for a herniated disk. The Division denied coverage for the second surgery, as well as temporary total disability benefits, on the basis that the recent back surgery was not directly related to the work injury. The Office of Administrative Hearings upheld the decision. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing officer’s decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence and that Appellant failed to show that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law. View "Newman v. State ex rel., Dep’t of Workforce Servs." on Justia Law

David Hartmann was injured during the course of his employment. After receiving surgery for his injury, Hartmann began experiencing dizzy spells. The Wyoming Workers’ Safety Compensation Division denied payment for the treatment Hartmann received for the dizziness. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) found that Hartmann failed to prove a causal link between his dizzy spells and his work injury. The district court reversed, concluding that the OAH failed to apply the second compensable injury rule. The Division appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order to the extent it held the OAH failed to apply the second compensable injury rule but reversed the order remanding the case to the OAH for reconsideration, holding (1) the district court’s ruling was not an appealable order, but it is in the interest of judicial economy to treat the notice of appeal as a petition for review; (2) the OAH failed to invoke and apply the applicable law; and (3) when the applicable law is applied, the OAH decision to reject Hartmann’s evidence is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. View "State, ex rel., Dep’t of Workforce Servs. v. Hartmann" on Justia Law

In 2011, Ted Price, as Trustee of the Price Family Trust, filed an application for the establishment of a private road asserting that his property had no outlet to or connection with a public road. The Crook County Board of Commissioners denied the application on the ground that Price already had access to his property from at least two existing public roads. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Board’s decision denying Price’s private road application was supported by substantial evidence, the actions of the Board were not arbitrary or capricious, and the record did not establish the level of inconvenience required to establish necessity; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Price’s request that the final result be set aside due to malfunctioning audio equipment. View "Price v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

In October 2010, Appellant slipped and fell down a flight of stairs outside of her workplace. In January 2011, Appellant was diagnosed with avascular necrosis (AVN) in the femoral head of her right hip. Eventually, the femoral head on her right hip collapsed due to the AVN progression, and in December 2011 Appellant received a total right hip replacement. The Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division denied Appellant’s claim for medical treatment of the AVN, concluding that Appellant’s October 2010 fall did not cause her to then develop AVN. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) agreed and denied benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were supported by substantial evidence and were in accordance with the law. View "In re Worker's Compensation Claim of Stevens" on Justia Law

Appellant, an employee of a Harley Davidson service center (Employer), was discharged after working more than five years with Employer. Appellant filed for unemployment benefits. After a hearing, the hearing officer determined that Appellant was not discharged for misconduct connected with his work. The Unemployment Insurance Commission reversed the hearing officer and denied Appellant unemployment compensation benefits, ruling that Appellant was terminated for misconduct. The district court affirmed the Commission. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the decision of the Commission was unsupported by the record. Remanded with direction that benefits should be restored to Appellant. View "Doggett v. Wyo. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Unemployment Ins. Comm’n" on Justia Law

Landowners Merlin and Lori Zowada filed a petition with the Board of County Commissioners to establish a private road to access their landlocked tract of property through property owned by Mullinax Concrete Service Company. The Board considered six alternative routes for the private road. After the Board ruled on the petition, the Supreme Court determined that the case should be remanded to the commissioners to compare the relative merits of only two alternative routes, Route 1 and Route 6, and to determine whether the greater cost of Route 6 was justified. After further proceedings, the Board established the road along Route 6. The Zowadas sought review of that decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s findings of fact and conclusion of law, holding that the Board’s decision to establish the private road along Route 6 was supported by substantial evidence. View "Zowada v. Mullinax Concrete Serv. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Enrique Herrera was working for Gilligan’s LLC under the supervision of Robert Phillipps when he was injured. Herrera was an alien who was not authorized to work in the United States at the time of the injury. Herrera filed a lawsuit against Gilligan’s and Phillips, alleging that Defendants were negligent and that, if that Worker’s Compensation Act applied, Phillipps’ conduct was intentional and he was therefore liable as a co-employee. The district court granted summary judgment for Gilligan’s and Phillipps, concluding primarily that there was no genuine dispute as to the material fact that Defendants reasonably believed Herrera was authorized to work in the United States, and therefore, Defendants were immune from suit pursuant to the Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Gilligan’s had a reasonable belief that Herrera was authorized to work in the United States and whether Phillipps acted in intentional disregard of a dangerous condition when he instructed Herrera to perform his work. Remanded. View "Herrera v. Phillipps" on Justia Law

After the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) learned that JM, a minor, had several unexcused absences from school, a deputy count attorney filed a petition alleging that JM was a neglected child because Mother had failed to provide adequate education for JM’s well being. Following a hearing, the juvenile court entered an order of neglect. Mother appealed, claiming that the juvenile court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition because the district court was required to give her notice and counseling before the petition was filed, and she did not receive such notice or counseling. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the compulsory attendance statutes upon which Mother relied, which require school districts to give parents notice or counseling based on students’ unexcused absences, do not apply when a juvenile petition is filed by a prosecuting attorney under the Child Protection Act on the basis of a complaint from DFS alleging neglect. View "In re JM" on Justia Law

Montana-Dakota Utilities Company (MDU) was ordered by the Wyoming Public Service Commission to make refunds of the amounts MDU had overcharged its customers because of improper calculations and adjustments to its commodity balancing account. MDU filed a petition for review, challenging the legal authority of the Commission to order refunds. The district court affirmed the Commission’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the rule against retroactive ratemaking did not preclude the Commission from ordering the refund; (2) the Commission’s refund order did not violate the file rate doctrine; (3) the Commission was not subject to a statute of limitations in this case; (4) MDU failed to show that the Commission was equitably estopped from ordering a refund; and (5) the Commission’s action was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unlawful. View "Montana-Dakota Utils., Co. v. Wyo. Pub. Serv. Comm’n" on Justia Law

Pursuant to the Wyoming Public Records Act, Plaintiff requested from the Office of the Governor and the Wyoming Game & Fish Department (together, the State) documents related to the status of grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act. The State provided some documents and withheld others on grounds of the deliberative process privilege and the attorney-client communication privilege. The district court held (1) the Act incorporates the deliberative process privilege as a ground to exempt documents from disclosure under the Act, and the documents withheld under the deliberative process privilege were properly withheld by the State; and (2) two of the three documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege were properly withheld. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s ruling with respect to the documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege; (2) affirmed the district court’s ruling that the Act incorporates the deliberate process privilege; but (3) concluded that some of the documents withheld pursuant to the deliberative process privilege were not properly withheld because they were outside the scope of the privilege’s protection. View "Aland v. Mead" on Justia Law