Summary 2011 WY 61

Summary of Decision April 12, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

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

Case Name: State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division v. Robert C. Carson

Citation: 2011 WY 61

Docket Number: S-10-0156

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461956

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, the Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Katherine Mead, Mead and Mead, Jackson, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: April 12, 2011

Facts: Appellant appealed the district court’s reversal of a decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) denying a Motion to Reopen Claim submitted by Appellee. The Division contended the district court erred in supplementing the record pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.08 and in ordering that Appellee’s worker’s compensation claim be reopened pursuant to W.R.C.P. 60(b). The Division also contended the hearing examiner did not abuse her discretion in denying Appellee’s Motion to Reopen Claim. The Court affirmed the district court’s decision to supplement the record, reversed the order to reopen Appellee’s claim, and remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the OAH for consideration of the supplemented record.
Issues: Whether the district court erred when it granted Appellant’s motion to supplement the record pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.08. Whether the district court erred when it reversed the OAH’s decision to deny Appellant’s Motion to Reopen Claim without remanding to the agency for consideration of the supplemental record. Whether the hearing examiner abused her discretion in determining that Appellant’s Motion to Reopen Claim should be denied.

Holdings: W.R.A.P. 12.08 governs a reviewing court’s ability to supplement the record in an appeal from an administrative agency decision. The rule allows additional evidence to be presented on appeal from an administrative decision when (1) that evidence is material and (2) there is good cause for the failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency.

The Division contended the district court erred in supplementing the record because the materiality and good cause requirements of W.R.A.P. 12.08 were not established. It argued that the district court did not specifically find the evidence to be material and did not note any good cause which may have existed to justify supplementation of the record. Based on the district court’s broad discretion in determining whether to supplement the record in an appeal from an administrative decision, and the interest in flexibility of supplementation processes on appeal from administrative proceedings, the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in supplementing the record pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.08.

The Court agreed with the Appellee and Appellant that the failure to remand the case to the OAH for consideration of the supplemented evidence was error. The plain language of W.R.A.P. 12.08 requires additional evidence “to be taken before the agency,” and states that “[t]he agency may adhere to, or modify, its findings and decision after receiving such additional evidence.” The rule allows for the possibility that the agency will receive the supplemented record and subsequently decide to “adhere to” its findings. The rule clearly places the decision whether to alter its findings in the hands of the administrative agency. The Court agreed with the Appellant that the purpose of returning the supplemented evidence to the administrative agency under W.R.A.P. 12.08 was to allow the agency to retain control over disposition of the matter and to preserve the district court as a venue for appellate review.

The Court affirmed the district court’s decision to supplement the record, reversed the district court’s order reopening Appellee’s claim, and remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the OAH to consider the supplemented record.

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the court.