 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division v. Gerrard1/29/2001
. Gerrard appealed this denial on December 28, 1998, and requested a hearing. The OAH issued an order setting a hearing for April 6, 1999, and again appointed Attorney Hesco to represent the claimant pursuant to § 27-14-602(d). On February 10, 1999, Ms. Gerrard filed a statement of benefits claimed which listed the TTD benefits in the amount of $160.61. On March 15, 1999, Ms. Gerrard and the Division submitted a stipulated withdrawal of the TTD benefits appeal. The stipulation did not set forth the reason for the withdrawal. As of March 15, 1999, the record reflects unresolved medical claims related to left shoulder treatments in the amount of $1,511.90. When added to the TTD claim for $160.61, the total unresolved benefits equaled $1,672.51.
[ ] Attorney Hesco filed a motion and application for attorney's fees and costs of $494.68. The OAH awarded the attorney's fees and costs without reduction. The Division filed a request for reconsideration contending the award violated §27-14-602(d) and the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA) because no specific findings were made regarding the benefits at issue in the contested case hearing. It did not question that Attorney Hesco expended the represented time on the case, but it did take issue with the legality of the award in light of the statute and the WAPA requirements. Attorney Hesco filed a response and asserted the injury to Ms. Gerrard's left shoulder would have been an issue had a hearing been conducted and for this reason the benefits at issue could have exceeded the TTD claim ($160.61). The OAH issued an order denying the Division's request for reconsideration stating that the case did solely rest on the issue of timeliness of the TTD application but the Division had raised the question of causation and thus § 27-14-602(d) was not applicable. The Division appealed the order awarding attorney's fees and the denial of the request for reconsideration to the district court which certified the case to this Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ]
W.R.A.P. 12.09 provides for judicial review of agency action according to W.S. 16-3-114(c), which states that the reviewing court shall:
"(ii) 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;
"(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute." Mitchell v. State Recreation Commission Snowmobile Trails, 968 P.2d 37, 39 (Wyo. 1998).
We review an administrative decision certified pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) under the standards applicable to a reviewing court of first instance. Armstrong v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 991 P.2d 140, 142 (Wyo. 1999); Sheridan Race Car Association v. Rice Ranch, 864 P.2d 30, 32 (Wyo. 1993).
When an abuse of discretion is the issue on review, the reviewing court examines the question of whether the agency's "decision was based on a consideration of relevant factors and whether it is rational." Matter of Corman, 909 P.2d 966, 971 (Wyo. 1996). The failure of any essential finding to be supported by substantial evidence results in an arbitrary and capricious decision and must be reversed. Our definition of substantial evidence is "'relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of the agency.'" State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. v. Harris, 931 P.2d 255, 258 (Wyo. 1997) (quoting Stuckey v. State, ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div., 890 P.2d 1097, 1099 (Wyo. 1995)). When there
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|