State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division v. Cody Beazer and Horsley Company, LLC
2016 WY 111
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Horsley Co., a Florida contractor, provided a certificate showing out-of-state workers’ compensation coverage for nonresident employees; Wyoming Division accepted the proof and closed Horsley’s Wyoming account for nonresident employees.
- Horsley employee Cody Beazer (a Utah resident) was injured in Wyoming while working on Horsley’s project; Division and Horsley insurer mistakenly treated the claim as Wyoming-covered.
- Division paid benefits to Beazer, then issued a Case Cost Liability to Horsley under Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-203(a) for failing to report/pay premiums for that employee; Horsley paid some amounts but objected.
- Horsley filed two OAH proceedings: C-103 (disputing Division’s right to reimbursement under § 203(a)) and C-102 (seeking modification of benefits and asserting benefits were paid by mistake because Beazer was covered in Utah).
- OAH granted Horsley summary judgment on two independent grounds: Horsley had complied with the Act (proof of coverage) and the Division was equitably estopped from recovering payments. OAH also awarded Horsley attorney’s fees under § 27-14-602(d) for C-102; district court affirmed both summary judgment and the fee award.
- Division appealed the estoppel ruling and the fee awards; this Court affirmed summary judgment (rejecting estoppel challenge as moot because Division did not challenge the independent compliance ground) and affirmed the OAH fee award for C-102; it declined to review the district-court fee order because Division had not appealed that separate order.
Issues
| Issue | Division's Argument | Horsley's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OAH erred in granting summary judgment based on equitable estoppel | Estoppel standard misapplied; genuine factual issues existed (including whether Division acted in proprietary vs. governmental capacity) | Estoppel alternatively supported judgment; also Horsley complied with Act so not liable | Affirmed summary judgment — Division failed to challenge the other independent ground (Horsley’s compliance), so estoppel issue need not be decided |
| Whether Horsley complied with Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Act (proof of alternative coverage) | Division did not contest this ground on appeal | Horsley produced affidavit and insurer actions showing coverage for claimant | OAH and Court found no disputed fact and held Horsley complied with Act, relieving it from liability |
| Whether OAH properly awarded attorney’s fees under § 27-14-602(d) (C-102) | Fees not authorized because litigation did not involve “compensability of an injury” | C-102 raised compensability issues (e.g., whether later injury was compensable, whether benefits paid by mistake) so fees authorized | Fee award for C-102 affirmed — Division did not dispute the stated C-102 issues or the fee amount |
| Whether this Court may review district-court award of attorney’s fees (post-judgment fee order) | Court should review fee award as part of appeal | Horsley: Division failed to appeal the separate fee order, so no jurisdiction | Court lacks jurisdiction to review district-court fee order because Division did not file a separate notice of appeal for that order |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 341 P.3d 1066 (Wyo. 2015) (standard for appellate review of administrative agency decisions)
- Chavez v. Memorial Hosp. of Sweetwater County, 138 P.3d 185 (Wyo. 2006) (summary judgment standard in workers’ compensation administrative review)
- Ultra Resources, Inc. v. McMurry Energy Co., 99 P.3d 959 (Wyo. 2004) (appellate waiver: failure to challenge independent ground for judgment forfeits review)
- Nish v. Schaefer, 138 P.3d 1134 (Wyo. 2006) (separate appeal required for post-judgment fee/cost orders; lack of appeal deprives appellate jurisdiction)
- Andersen v. Hernandez, 122 P.3d 950 (Wyo. 2005) (district court retains jurisdiction to decide costs after final judgment; separate appeal rules explained)