Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Shannon Cave suffered a work-related injury and was awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits during her recovery. After Cave rejected an offer of temporary light duty work from her employer, the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division) reduced Cave's TTD benefits to one-third of the previously authorized amount in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-14-404(j). The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the reduction of TTD benefits. The district court reversed the OAH decision. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order, holding that the OAH decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not contrary to law as the hearing examiner properly determined that the offer of light duty employment tendered to Cave was bona fide, and therefore, the OAH was obligated to reduce Cave's TTD benefits. View "State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div. v. Cave" on Justia Law

Employee injured his knee while climbing into his employer-provided truck as he was preparing to leave on a work-related trip. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division) denied Employee's requested workers' compensation benefits related to his injury. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) granted summary judgment in favor of the Division. The district court affirmed the OAH's decision. At issue on appeal was whether Employee's injury was sustained while he was being transported by a vehicle of the employer as the statute requires. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statute plainly and unambiguously requires that for an injury sustained during travel to be compensable, it must occur as the employer's vehicle is carrying the employee from one place to another; and (2) because Employee here was entering the vehicle in preparation for that transportation when he was injured, the injury he sustained was not compensable. View "Barlow v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

When Daniel Gallagher, who purchased property west of land owned by J&T Properties, discovered he did not have access to a nearby public road, Gallagher petitioned the Board of County Commissioners for a private road across J&T's property. The county commissioners concluded that Gallagher had no legally enforceable access and certified the case to district court. The district court granted Gallagher a private road across J&T's property. J&T appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the district court correctly interpreted the law as allowing the condemnation of a private road even though it did not connect directly with a public road and properly refused to require Gallagher to join the owners of land over which he already had easements; and (2) the issue of whether the district court erred by denying J&T reimbursement for the costs of securing and presenting the appraisal used in determining its damages was not properly presented to the district court or the Supreme Court, and therefore, the Court refused to consider the issue. View "J&T Properties, L.L.C. v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

Appellant Dawn Schossow injured her back while working as a nurse. Upon returning to work, Appellant requested permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-14-405(h), which governs the availability of PPD benefits and sets out the elements an injured worker must prove to qualify to receive the benefits. Appellant's request was denied. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits, and the district court affirmed the OAH's decision. On appeal, Appellant contended that the OAH hearing examiner erred as a matter of law in interpreting section 27-14-405(h)(i) and that the hearing examiner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing examiner properly applied the statute in assessing what wage to use when determining Appellant's PPD eligibility; and (2) the hearing examiner's conclusion that Appellant was capable of earning ninety-five percent of her pre-injury wage, and thus was not eligible for PPD benefits, was supported by substantial evidence. View "Schossow v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

In 2006, Will Torres claimed he injured his low back in a slip-and-fall accident at Home Depot where he worked. Torres had suffered two previous injuries to his low back. In January 2007, Torres received an MRI, which a doctor later used to diagnose Torres with multilevel degenerative disease. In August 2007, Torres had surgery performed on his back. Torres sought worker's compensation benefits from the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division related to the back surgery. The division denied Torres disability benefits, determining that the surgery was not causally related to the 2006 accident. The division's denial was upheld by the Office of Administrative Hearings and later by the district court. Torres appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the hearing examiner's determination that Torres had failed to prove a causal relationship between the fusion surgery and the 2006 work incident was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. View "Torres v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division" on Justia Law

In two consolidated appeals, the Town of Evansville ("town") Police Department ("department") appealed the district court's order of reversal for agency inaction filed July 23, 2009 and the district court's order denying motion for relief from an order filed April 15, 2010. The appeals arose from the department's efforts to terminate the employment of plaintiff, a police officer in the department. The court held that, considering all the facts of record relative to plaintiff's request for appeal of the termination of his employment, including the consent of the attorney for the town for an extension of the ten day deadline to request a hearing, the court found that the requirements of Article 23 of Chapter 2 of the Ordinances of the town was sufficiently invoked to require a post-termination hearing. As a result, the inaction of the department in failing to provide the required hearing before the governing body must be reversed, with the matter remanded to afford the rights prescribed by the town's own ordinance.

In consolidated appeals, plaintiff challenged the district court's conclusions that its property was properly included in the South of Laramie Water and Sewer District ("district") and that the district lawfully issued certain general obligation bonds. Plaintiff also challenged the refusal of the Board of County Commissioners of Albany County ("board") to exclude plaintiff's property from the district. The court affirmed Docket No. S-10-0199 and held that plaintiff was barred from challenging the inclusion of its property in the district and found that the district's proposed general obligation bond issue was not unlawful. In Docket No. S-10-0238, the court answered certified questions related to the Wyoming board of county commissioners' power to remove real property from a water and sewer district and the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Claim I under section 12(b)(6) where a motion to dismiss under section 12(b)(6) was an appropriate vehicle in which to raise the issue of the passage of a period of limitations; where Wyo. State. Ann 41-10-107(g) unambiguously forbade any "petition in error [or] other appeal" from a board's resolution establishing a water district, and unambiguously stated that the "organization of the district shall not be directly or collaterally questioned in any suit, action or proceeding" except "an action in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, commenced by the attorney general within thirty (30) days after the resolution..."; and where there was no inherent right to appeal from administrative action.

Maverick Motorsports Group, LLC ("Maverick") challenged a decision of the State Board of Equalization ("SBOE") that certain sales by Maverick were subject to Wyoming sales tax. At issue was whether sales of recreational vehicles were taxable in Wyoming because possession was transferred in Wyoming. Also at issue was whether enforcement and collection of Wyoming sales taxes violated the Commerce Clause. The court affirmed the actions of the SBOE and held that the purchase of the various recreational vehicles at issue constituted a taxable event where buyers took possession of the vehicles in Wyoming and that collection of sales taxes on these vehicles met constitutional requirements and did not violate the Commerce Clause.