Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2009 WY 57

Summary of Decision issued April 21, 2009

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

Case Name: Williams v. State ex rel., Wyoming Workers? Safety & Comp. Div.

Citation: 2009 WY 57

Docket Number: S-08-0034

W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) Certification from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge.

Representing Appellant Williams: Donal J. Sullivan of Sullivan Law Offices, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; J.C. Demers, Special Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Amicus Curiae Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.: Paul D. Polidoro and Keturah A. Dunne, Associate General Counsel, Patterson, New York; Diana Sampson Rhodes of Rhodes Law Firm, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Sharon Williams sought worker?s compensation death benefits as the surviving spouse of Howard Williams who died from injuries suffered in a work-related car accident. The Division denied the claim on the basis that Mr. Williams refused reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The OAH also denied benefits stating that Mr. Williams had forfeited all right to benefits when he refused to allow the use of blood products to treat his injuries because of his religious beliefs.

Constitutionality of § 27-14-407: Procedurally, Mrs. Williams is barred from raising the constitutional claim in the context of the case because administrative agencies have no authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute. Neither the district court nor the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on appeal of an agency action to consider it.

Substantial evidence: The decisive question was whether the hearing examiner?s determination that Mr. Williams? decisions ran afoul of § 27-14-407 was supported by substantial evidence viewed in light of the record as a whole. The Court found the record evidence did not adequately support such a determination. The statute established two forms of conduct by which a claimant forfeits compensation: if a claimant engages or persists in an unsanitary or injurious practice which tends to imperil or retard his recovery or second, if a claimant refuses to submit to medical or surgical treatment reasonably essential to promote his recovery. In the instant case, the hearing examiner determined Mr. Williams had engaged in both forms by his refusal to allow the use of blood products to treat his lacerated spleen. The Court disagreed noting that the critical evidence consisted of the Doctor?s testimony in which she repeatedly stated that she could not say whether Mr. Williams would have survived had blood products been transfused.

Conclusion: The constitutionality of §27-14-407 was not properly before the Court. As for the evidentiary issue; the Division needed to present positive evidence that Mr. Williams failed to survive because of his refusal to accept foreign blood products. It did not do so. The determination granting forfeiture of benefits was reversed. The Case was remanded to the district court with instructions to reverse the order of the OAH and enter the order that the Division award the applicable death benefits to Mrs. Williams.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

C.J. Voigt dissented: The Justice stated that the underlying facts were not in dispute and there was not even a question as to whether the employee refused to submit to medical or surgical treatment. The only question was whether the treatment he refused was reasonably essential to promote his recovery. While the treating physician was not willing to say that the employee?s refusal to accept blood products and his delay of surgery until his son?s arrival, were the difference between life and death, she said everything short of that. The statutory test established by the legislature was not whether the refused treatment would have saved the employees life but rather whether the treatment was reasonably essential to promote his recovery.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/cu9hcd .

[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.]

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on April 21, 2009 (boomark / email).