Summary 2007 WY 9

Summary of Decision issued January 18, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Birkle v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 9

Docket Number: 05-245

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Dan Spangler, Retired, Judge

Representing Appellant (Respondent): Harry G. Bondi of Harry G. Bondi Law Offices, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristi M. Radosevich, Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the OAH legally obtained jurisdiction of Birkle’s contested case.

Facts/Discussion: The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) denied a claim for medical benefits submitted by Birkle. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) entered an order reversing the Division and awarding Birkle benefits. The Division sought review of the OAH order to the district court, which reversed the OAH on substantive grounds, agreeing with the Division that benefits should be denied. Birkle appealed.
For purposes of the appeal, procedural problems began when the Division referred the case to the Medical Commission. The Medical Commission only has subject matter jurisdiction over medically contested cases. The primary issue in the Birkle case as it reached the Court was the legal issue of coverage. The Medical Commission recognized the case involved a legal issue but rather than return the case to the Division, they directly referred the case to the OAH by its own order. The assumption of jurisdiction over Birkle’s contested case by the OAH under these circumstances was in error. Since the OAH never legally obtained jurisdiction, its proceedings were a nullity. The OAH order was void, ab initio. No order existed from which the Division could seek review, leaving the district court without jurisdiction to entertain the Division’s petition for review. The district court’s order reversing the OAH consequently is also void. The Court had no appealable final order before it, leaving them with no option but to dismiss.

Holding: The OAH never acquired jurisdiction of Birkle’s contested case. As such, there was no valid OAH order to be subjected to judicial review. The order of the district court was void and the instant appeal was dismissed.

Dismissed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Dissent: J. Kite, joined by J. Burke. Under Wyoming’s statutory scheme, the OAH was the only agency with the authority to decide the issue presented. The fact the Division mistakenly referred the case to the Medical Commission which then transferred the case to the OAH rather than returning it to the Division for referral to the OAH did not deprive the OAH of subject matter jurisdiction to decide the legal issue presented. When read narrowly, § 27-14-616(b)(iv), French and Jacobs seem to support the majority. In Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-101 the legislature expressed its intent that Wyoming’s workers’ compensation statutes were to be interpreted to assure the “quick and efficient” delivery of benefits and that claims cases were to be decided on their merits. Mindful of that intent, the dissenting justices would not read the relevant statutory provisions or the case law as narrowly as the majority. Upon realizing the issues were purely legal, the Medical Commission was required to transfer the case. The present case is distinguishable from French and Jacobs in that the Medical Commission did not decide issues it was without authority to decide.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/36xy5y .