Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

When the Union and the City entered into negotiations regarding the 2012-2013 wages and other employment terms for the City's fire department members, the City included in its negotiating team the mayor, one city council member, and other members of the City's administration and staff. The Union eventually filed a declaratory judgment seeking a ruling that a quorum of the city council was required to negotiate with the Union, the City could not unilaterally decide to conduct the negotiating sessions in public, and the proposals exchanged by the parties were not public records. The district court granted summary judgment declaring that a quorum of the city council was not obligated to participate in the negotiations and that the other two issues were not justiciable. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that the statutes mandate a quorum of the city council to negotiate with the Union and that the other two issues were not justiciable. View "Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters Local Union No. 279 v. City of Cheyenne" on Justia Law

This case concerned Merit Energy Company's 2006 natural gas severance and ad valorem tax liability for wells located in several counties. Merit was a take-in-kind interest owner, which is a party who elects to take a portion of the mineral produced rather than receive monetary remuneration for its share of the production. The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) determined that Merit failed to timely appeal several final Wyoming Department of Revenue (DOR) decisions regarding the amount of taxable gas it had received and dismissed Merit's appeal. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in affirming the SBOE's dismissal as untimely; and (2) even if the Court permitted Merit to appeal the notice of valuation change sent by the DOR, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded Merit from doing so. View "Merit Energy Co. v. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

After Appellant suffered a workplace injury to his knees in 1993, the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division) awarded him benefits. In 2009, Appellant sought payment for a left knee arthroscopy, claiming the treatment was related to his workplace injury. The Division denied benefits relating to treatment of Appellant's left knee. After a contested case hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), the hearing examiner upheld the Division's decision. The district court affirmed the hearing examiner's order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing examiner's finding was supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the OAH did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay testimony from Appellant regarding the medical opinion of his treating physician. View "Trump v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Appellant received a low back injury during the course of his employment and sought worker's compensation benefits. The Wyoming Worker's Safety and Compensation Division denied the claim but subsequently issued a redetermination approving payment of benefits for the injury. The redetermination informed the parties that they had fifteen days to object and request a hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), but Employer did not file an objection until four days after the deadline. Without holding a contested case hearing, the OAH granted summary judgment to Appellant, concluding that Employer failed to timely file its objection and request for a hearing. The district court reversed, determining that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the Division waived the objection deadline for Employer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no reasonable basis existed for failing timely to object to the redetermination. View "Schwab v. JTL Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant sustained a second to third-degree burn to his foot while working for Employer. Appellant's injury was found to be compensable. Appellant subsequently experienced foot pain and difficulty standing and wearing work boots and therefore applied for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. After a contested case hearing, a panel of the Medical Commission concluded that Appellant did not meet his burden of proving entitlement to PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission reasonably concluded Appellant was not entitled to PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine and did not otherwise err in its decision. View "McIntosh v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

While she was working as a nurse at a hospital, Appellant suffered a heart attack. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied Appellant's claim for benefits. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's denial of benefits, concluding that Appellant failed to prove her myocardial infarction was caused by exertion clearly unusual or abnormal to her position at the hospital. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH did not err when it interpreted the statute governing coronary conditions to require that the causative exertion be unusual or abnormal for her position at the hospital rather than unusual or abnormal in the nursing profession generally. View "Fieseler v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Lisa Kisling, the legal guardian of two children with special needs, applied for and received child care assistance benefits up until the time she enrolled in law school. At that time, the Department of Family Services (Department) denied child care assistance benefits to Kisling because her participation in a graduate program in college rendered her ineligible for receipt of such benefits. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits. The district court reversed, holding that the Department was equitably estopped from denying benefits to Kisling. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in considering Kisling's estoppel claim because that issue was not raised in the proceedings before the OAH. View "State ex rel. Dep't of Family Servs. v. Kisling" on Justia Law

Appellant was employed as an iron worker when he injured his neck. Appellant received temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for thirty-six months, after which he underwent shoulder surgery. Appellant subsequently filed an application with the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division for additional benefits, arguing that his shoulder surgery was a second compensable injury and, therefore, he was entitled to a separate period of benefits. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) agreed that the shoulder surgery was a second compensable injury and that the thirty-six month time limitation on Appellant's TTD benefits was inapplicable. The district court affirmed the OAH's determination that Appellant's shoulder injury constituted a second compensable injury but concluded that the time limitation did apply to Appellant's benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant's shoulder injury was a result of the same accident that caused his neck injury, he was not entitled to an additional period of benefits. View "Picozzi v. State ex rel., Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

In 1988, Appellant injured his lower back while working for a paving company. Appellant underwent lumbar surgery in 1989 and, afterward, did not require additional treatment for his back surgery for several years. In 2007, an internist diagnosed Appellant with an arthritic hip and recommended a hip replacement. Appellant submitted a bill for the office visit to the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, which declined to pay the bill on the grounds that the hip condition was unrelated to the original work injury. After a contested case hearing, an Office of Administrative Hearings hearing examiner found that Appellant's arthritic hip was not related to the original compensable injury, and therefore, Appellant was entitled to benefits. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions. View "Little v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

In 1996, Appellant suffered a work-related back injury and sought benefits from the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division. In 2009, Appellant began to experience significant lower back pain after shoveling snow. Appellant attempted to reopen her 1996 worker's compensation case to obtain payment for treatment of her recent back pain. The Division refused to reopen the case and denied Appellant's claims for benefits because more than four years had passed since she last sought benefits for her 1996 injury and because she failed to show her current injury was directly related to the 1996 injury. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the decision. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court, holding (1) the OAH's decision was not contrary to law and was supported by substantial evidence; (2) the OAH hearing examiner did not act arbitrarily and capriciously or abuse his discretion; and (3) the hearing examiner's findings of fact were sufficient. View "Leavitt v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law