 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carrillo v. State ex rel Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division3/10/2005
[ ] The appellant, Trina Carrillo, appeals from the district court's reversal of a hearing examiner's conclusion that she was entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits. Carrillo asserts that the district court's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the vocational rehabilitation statute. We find that the district court correctly interpreted the statute and we affirm.
ISSUE
[ ]Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-408(a)(ii) (LexisNexis 2003) provides:
(a) An injured employee may apply to the division to participate in a vocational rehabilitation program if:
(ii) The compensable injury will prevent the employee from returning to any occupation for which the employee has previous training or experience and in which the employee was gainfully employed at any time during the three (3) year period before the injury[.]
(Emphasis added.) The issue presented here is the meaning of "any" as first used in the statute above.
FACTS
[ ] Carrillo injured her back while working as a certified nurses aide (CNA). Because of her injury, Carrillo was not able to return to her job as a CNA and applied for vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) denied her request for benefits. Carrillo challenged this determination and a contested case hearing was held. The hearing examiner reversed the denial of benefits. The Division petitioned the district court to review that determination. The district court found that the hearing examiner misinterpreted the statute and reversed. Carrillo timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
[ ] Resolution of this appeal depends on the meaning of "any" as used in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-408(a)(ii). The statute provides that an injured employee may apply for vocational rehabilitation benefits if, following an injury, she cannot return to "any occupation for which the employee has previous training or experience and in which the employee was gainfully employed at any time during the three (3) year period before the injury[.]" Id. Carrillo asserts that the statute should be interpreted to mean that if she cannot return to even one occupation she had in the three years prior to her injury, she should be provided vocational rehabilitation. Under this interpretation, if she had three jobs in the past three years, and after her injury she could return to two of the three, she would, nevertheless, qualify for vocational rehabilitation. The Division, however, interprets the statute to mean that Carrillo only qualifies for vocational rehabilitation if she is unable to return to all jobs for which she had prior training and experience and in which she was gainfully employed in the past three years. Under this interpretation, if she had three jobs and could return to even one of the three, she would not qualify for vocational rehabilitation benefits. The district court agreed with this latter interpretation.
[ ] "The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act are a question of law over which our review authority is plenary." In re Collicott, 2001 WY 35, 4, 20 P.3d 1077, 1079 (Wyo. 2001). Statutory interpretation is a question of law and we review agencies' conclusions of law de novo. Kuntz-Dexter v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 2002 WY 101 10, 49 P.3d 190, 192-93 (Wyo. 2002). When interpreting statutes:
" e look first to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words to determine if the statute is ambiguous. A statute is clear and unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree on its meaning with c
Page 1 2 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|