Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

HJO (Mother), the biologic mother of nine minor children, appealed a district court's order following a jury verdict terminating her parental rights. Mother contested the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the State. Department of Family Services (DFS) to terminate her parental rights, the appropriateness of the special verdict form submitted to the jury, the constitutionality of the termination statute which set out the burden of proof, and alleged cumulative errors. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and accordingly affirmed the termination of Mother's parental rights. View "In re termination of Parental Rights to: KMO, DMO, CMO, AKO, DKO, MTO, ABO, EEO, and JBO" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of Ryan Dorman's petition for an extension of his worker's compensation temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and for reimbursement of travel expenses incurred in travelling from Idaho to Cheyenne to obtain medical care. In May 2006, Dorman sought treatment from an Idaho physician for treatment of his alleged work-related injury. Due to the nature of Dorman's injury, he consulted multiple physicians, first in Idaho, then in Wyoming. With each consultation, the doctors indicated that the injury was outside of their scope of expertise, and referred Doman to another specialist. During the period that Dorman was changing physicians, the Division and Dorman negotiated a stipulation concerning his TTD benefits and other benefits. This followed OAH and district court decisions that largely reversed the Division's earlier determinations concerning TTD benefits and Dorman's need for continued medical treatment. The Stipulated Order also provided that medical benefits would be paid as directed by the district court's order. After the Division paid the stipulated TTD benefits, Dorman submitted a letter to the Division requesting extended benefits The Division thereafter issued a final determination denying them, and further denied several applications for travel expense reimbursement for Dorman's trips to Idaho and Cheyenne. The matters were referred to the OAH where a combined hearing was held on the denial of TTD benefits, denial of travel reimbursement, and denial of diagnostic testing related to Dorman's injury. The OAH upheld the denial of TTD benefits on the ground that Dorman had failed to make the required showing that the Idaho and Cheyenne doctors were the closest available medical providers. Dorman appealed the portion of the OAH order denying extended TTD benefits and travel reimbursement to the district court. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the OAH denial of the travel reimbursement: Dorman could not prove that reimbursement of travel expenses was not supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. View "Dorman v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division awarded benefits to Appellant Gary Mitcheson after he fell at work and injured his tailbone in July of 2007. Approximately two years later, the Division issued a final determination denying payment for medical care that Appellant claimed was related to his workplace injury. Appellant requested a contested case hearing, and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's determination. Appellant appealed to the district court, which upheld the OAH's order. On appeal, Appellant challenged the OAH order contending: (1) the order was arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the OAH's denial of payment for treating Appellant's tailbone was arbitrary; and (3) the OAH order denying payment for medical care contrary to the "Rule Out" rule was contrary to law. Finding the issues Appellant raised on appeal to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the OAH's decision. View "Mitcheson v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Applicants Wagonhound Land and Livestock Company, LLC, VenJohn Oil, Inc., and Steven M. VenJohn filed a petition with the Wyoming State Board of Control seeking to change the place of use, point of diversion and means of conveyance for water appropriations attached to 174.8 acres. VenJohn owned the appropriations from the North Platte River and requested that the point of diversion and place of use of the rights be moved upstream to Wagonhound’s land. Vic and Jane Garber and several others who were intervening water right holders, objected to the petition, and the Board held a contested case hearing. The Board granted the Applicants’ petition but reduced the transferred rights to 152.5 acres. The Objectors unsuccessfully petitioned the district court for review of the Board decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court, they challenged: the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the Board's record; and whether the final decision was in violation of Wyo. Stats. 41-3-104 and 41-3-114. Although the Objectors claimed the defects in the original petition required reversal of the Board’s decision, the Supreme Court found that they did not sufficiently explain why the amendment process was inappropriate or how it violated statute or board rules. The Objectors also did not demonstrate how the other landowners were injured by the petition or the process employed by the Board. Without further explanation, the Court could not accept their argument, and affirmed the Board's decision. View "Garber v. Wagonhound Livestock & Land Company, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant in this case attempted to challenge an agency decision denying her claim for unemployment benefits. Appellant filed a timely petition for review of agency action pursuant to Wyo. R. App. P. 12 (Rule 12). The district court dismissed the petition due to procedural deficiencies. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration based on Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60 (Rule 60). The district court denied the motion. Appellant then appealed the order denying her motion for reconsideration. At issue on appeal was whether, when a district court enters a final judgment in a Rule 12 agency appeal, a party can file a Rule 60 motion to set aside the court's judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that a Rule 60 motion is not an avenue available to mount a challenge to a district court's final decision in an agency appeal. View "Nicholson v. Dep't of Employment" on Justia Law

This was an appeal from a forfeiture order entered by the district court against a total of $116,584 and certain items of personal property. The cash and personal property were seized from several individuals because of their alleged use in violation of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act. Appellants Joseph Libretti and Frank Hohlios claimed $7,209 of the cash seized and appealed the forfeiture order, contending that the district court erred in holding an evidentiary hearing without ruling on their motions to dismiss or for a more definite statement, and in denying them the opportunity to file answers, conduct discovery, file summary judgment motions, or avail themselves of the right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court acted in accordance with the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure in ruling on the State's forfeiture complaint and did not deny the rights of Appellants to file answers, conduct discovery, file summary judgment motions, or otherwise fully participate in the proceedings. View "Libretti v. State" on Justia Law

Catherine Morris submitted a worker's compensation claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, and the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied her claim. The Wyoming Medical Commission upheld the Division's denial of benefits. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission did not abuse its discretion in admitting a psychological report produced after the discovery cutoff; and (2) the Commission abused its discretion in limiting the scope of Morris' testimony to matters not discussed in the discovery deposition taken by the Division, but Morris did not object below to that limitation and thus waived her right to appeal that issue. View "Morris v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

After being separately cited and arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWUI), Ricky Miller and Christopher Gonzalez (Petitioners) petitioned the district court for review of agency inaction by the Wyoming Department of Health (WDOH). Miller and Gonzalez requested that the district court require the WDOH to retroactively decertify the chemical test operators who had performed chemical tests of Petitioners' breath to determine the quantity of alcohol in their respective bodies. The district court dismissed the petition on the grounds that Petitioners lacked standing to bring the action and that the matter was not ripe for review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners did not satisfy the three elements of standing as set forth in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, and therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Petitioners' petition for review for lack of standing. View "Miller v. Dep't of Health" on Justia Law

Kenneth Cook was terminated from his employment as a sheriff department deputy for violating department policies related to report writing and firearms security. Cook requested a contested case hearing before the sheriff, who upheld Cook's dismissal from the Department. The district court reversed, concluding that the record did not contain substantial evidence demonstrating cause existed to dismiss Cook on the basis of his violation of department policies. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Sheriff's determination that cause existed to discharge Cook on the basis of his violation of department policies was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Laramie County Sheriff's Dep't v. Cook" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Beall received preauthorization from the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division for an orchiectomy, a procedure to remove his left testicle, which he claimed was related to a workplace injury. Beall's employer, Sky Blue Enterprises, objected to the preauthorization and the matter was referred to the Medical Commission Hearing Panel for a contested case hearing. Beall elected to undergo the surgery prior to the scheduled hearing. The Commission denied Beall's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses on the basis that the surgery was not reasonable or necessary medical care resulting from his workplace injury. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the burden of proving that the orchiectomy was reasonable and necessary medical care as related to Beall's alleged workplace injury rested with Beall; and (2) substantial evidence supported the Commission's determination that Beall failed to meet this burden. View "Beall v. Sky Blue Enters., Inc." on Justia Law