BRUCE HAYSE, M.D. and PAUL CASSIDY v. WYOMING BOARD OF CORONER STANDARDS
S-19-0109
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
January 8, 2020
2020 WY 4
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2019
Appeal from the District Court of Teton County
The Honorable Timothy C. Day, Judge
Representing Appellants:
Frank R. Chapman and Patrick J. Lewallen, Chapman Valdez & Lansing, Casper, Wyoming; Deidre J. Bainbridge, Attorney at Law, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Lewallen.
Representing Appellee:
Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General; Michael J. McGrady, Deputy Attorney General. Argument by Mr. McGrady.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
FOX, J., delivers the opinion of the Court; KAUTZ, J., files a dissenting opinion.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
BRUCE HAYSE, M.D. and PAUL CASSIDY v. WYOMING BOARD OF CORONER STANDARDS
S-19-0109
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
January 8, 2020
2020 WY 4
FOX, Justice.
[¶1] This case arises from an ongoing dispute over the Teton County Coroner’s alleged misconduct during a coroner’s inquest. We affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a related action seeking to set aside the coroner’s inquest verdict in In re Birkholz, 2019 WY 19, 434 P.3d 1102 (Wyo. 2019). While that action was pending, Paul Cassidy and Dr. Bruce Hayse requested that the Board of Coroner Standards (Board) investigate the coroner’s alleged misconduct. The Board refused to investigate, and the district court affirmed its refusal. We also affirm.
ISSUE
[¶2] We decide the following dispositive issue:
Does the Board of Coroner Standards have authority to review complaints alleging that a coroner committed misconduct while conducting an inquest?
FACTS
[¶3] In their previous action, Paul Cassidy and Dr. Bruce Hayse alleged that Teton County Coroner, Dr. Brent Blue, committed misconduct during a coroner’s inquest into the death of Anthony Lee Birkholz. See generally In re Birkholz, 2019 WY 19, 434 P.3d 1102. They also sought to have the Board of Coroner Standards investigate Dr. Blue’s alleged misconduct. The Board refused to investigate the inquest, concluding that it did not have statutory authority to do so. The Board asserted that under
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶4] We review an agency decision “as if it came directly from the administrative agency” and give no deference to the district court’s decision on appeal. State ex rel. Dep’t of Workforce Servs. v. Williams, 2018 WY 10, ¶ 23, 409 P.3d 1219, 1226 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Price v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Workers’ Comp. Div., 2017 WY 16, ¶ 7, 388 P.3d 786, 789 (Wyo. 2017)). We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo. Casiano v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep’t of Transp., 2019 WY 16, ¶ 8, 434 P.3d 116, 120 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Lietz v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Family Servs., 2018 WY 127, ¶ 11, 430 P.3d 310, 314 (Wyo. 2018)). The issue of whether the Board has authority to review complaints that a coroner committed misconduct while conducting an inquest requires us to interpret
DISCUSSION
[¶5] Mr. Cassidy and Dr. Hayse argue that
[¶6] Our goal in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the legislature’s intent. Wyo. Jet Ctr., LLC v. Jackson Hole Airport Bd., 2019 WY 6, ¶ 12, 432 P.3d 910, 915 (Wyo. 2019) (citing PacifiCorp, Inc. v. Wyo. Dep’t of Rev., 2017 WY 106, ¶ 10, 401 P.3d 905, 908-09 (Wyo. 2017)). We attempt to determine legislative intent based primarily on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute. Wyo. Jet Ctr., 2019 WY 6, ¶ 12, 432 P.3d at 915. “Where legislative intent is discernible a court should give effect to the ‘most likely, most reasonable, interpretation of the statute, given its design and purpose.’” Id. (quoting Adekale v. State, 2015 WY 30, ¶ 12, 344 P.3d 761, 765 (Wyo. 2015)). Further, we
construe each statutory provision in pari materia, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence according to their arrangement and connection. To ascertain the meaning of a given law, we also consider all statutes relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose and strive to interpret them harmoniously. We presume that the legislature has acted in a thoughtful and rational manner with full knowledge of existing law, and that it intended new statutory provisions to be read in harmony with existing law and as part of an overall and uniform system of jurisprudence. When the words used convey a specific and obvious meaning, we need not go farther and engage in statutory construction.
Wyo. Jet Ctr., 2019 WY 6, ¶ 12, 432 P.3d at 915. Applying these rules, we conclude that the Board does not have authority to investigate allegations of coroner misconduct.1
(c) The board shall:
(i) Meet at least biannually and at the call of the chairman or of a majority of the membership;
(ii) Promulgate standards dealing with the investigation of coroner’s cases;
a case involving a death which was not anticipated and which may involve any of the following conditions:
(A) Violent or criminal action;
(B) Apparent suicide;
(C) Accident;
(D) Apparent drug or chemical overdose or toxicity;
(E) The deceased was unattended by a physician or other licensed health care provider;
(F) Apparent child abuse causes;
(G) The deceased was a prisoner, trustee, inmate or patient of any county or state corrections facility or state hospital, whether or not the death is unanticipated;
(H) If the cause is unknown or cannot be certified by a physician;
(J) A public health hazard is presented; or
(K) The identity of the victim is unknown or the body is unclaimed.
(iii) Promulgate educational and training requirements for coroner basic and continuing education requirements and review those requirements annually;
(iv) Cooperate with the peace officer standards and training commission in developing basic and continuing education courses for coroners;
(v) Promulgate employment standards for deputy coroners and coroner employees. The standards may include the requirement that deputy coroners and coroner employees provide to the employing coroner fingerprints and other information necessary for a state and national criminal history record background check and release of information as provided in
(vi) Promulgate rules and regulations to provide for the review of complaints if a coroner or deputy coroner has failed to comply with any provision of
(vii) Provide for a system to offer educational programs to assist coroners and deputy coroners in meeting educational and training requirements provided under this section.
[¶8] Subsection (c)(vi) directs the Board to provide for the review of complaints regarding a coroner’s compliance “with any provision of
comply with “this subsection.” It makes no reference to authority to investigate for alleged failure to comply with Board standards. The legislature has incorporated standards or rules violations as a basis for professional discipline in many other contexts and could have done so here, but did not.2 Second, the Board
[¶9] Further, Appellants’ isolated reading of subsection (c)(vi), is undercut by the limited action that section authorizes the Board to take in response to complaints against coroners. The second sentence of section (c)(vi) authorizes the Board to “make recommendations to the peace officer standards and training commission [(POST)] regarding revocation of certifications[.]”
requirements promulgated by the board of coroner standards pursuant to W.S. 7-4-211(c)(iii).”
[¶10] The remainder of section 211 bolsters our conclusion that the Board only has authority to review complaints related to coroner education and training. Subsection 211(d) requires POST to cooperate with the Board to develop “course requirements and continuing education requirements[.]”
[¶11] Our analysis is also guided by the rule limiting an agency’s authority to that expressly granted by the legislature:
An administrative agency is limited in authority to powers legislatively delegated. “Administrative agencies are creatures of statute and their power is dependent upon statutes, so that they must find within
the statute warrant for the exercise of any authority which they claim.”
Amoco Production Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 12 P.3d 668, 673 (Wyo. 2000) (citations omitted). “An agency is wholly without power to modify, dilute or change in any way the statutory provisions from which it derives its authority.” Platte Development Co. v. State, Environmental Quality Council, 966 P.2d 972, 975 (Wyo. 1998). Thus, administrative agencies are bound to comply with their enabling statutes. Sears v. Romer, 928 P.2d 745, 751 (Colo. App. 1996).
In re Billings, 2001 WY 81, ¶ 24, 30 P.3d 557, 568 (Wyo. 2001). The legislature has granted numerous professional boards authority to investigate and discipline licensees for violation of any rules promulgated by their respective boards. See supra n.2;
BRUCE HAYSE, M.D. and PAUL CASSIDY v. WYOMING BOARD OF CORONER STANDARDS
S-19-0109
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
January 8, 2020
2020 WY 4
KAUTZ, J., dissenting.
KAUTZ, J., dissenting.
[¶12] I respectfully dissent.
[¶13] From the plain words of the applicable statutes, the Board of Coroners (Board) has the authority (and obligation) to review a complaint that a coroner failed to comply with the Board’s standards dealing with the investigation of coroner cases.
[¶14]
[¶16] POST is not limited to enforcing training and education requirements as suggested by the majority. It also has the authority to suspend or revoke certifications based on a failure to follow conduct standards.
Act.” (emphasis added). Chapter 8 of the POST rules provides that POST can suspend or revoke a certification for a variety of reasons including (1) conviction of a felony (mandatory revocation or suspension); (2) unlawful use, possession or distribution of drugs (mandatory revocation or suspension); (3) existence of a physical or mental condition which substantially limits the officer’s ability to perform the essential duties of a peace officer or poses a direct threat to the health and safety of the public or fellow officers (discretionary revocation or suspension); (4) participation in other conduct or a pattern of conduct which tends to significantly undermine public confidence in the law enforcement profession, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, discriminatory conduct, and falsifying reports (discretionary revocation or suspension); (5) failure to meet the minimum standards for employment for peace officers (discretionary revocation or suspension); and (6) failure to meet the minimum training requirements (discretionary revocation or suspension). POST is much more than simply an education and training agency; it is an enforcement agency. Consequently, it is not “absurd” to require the Board to make recommendations to POST from investigations of a coroner’s alleged non-compliance with conduct standards.
[¶17] The majority opinion disregards portions of § 7-4-211(c) based on the absurdity doctrine. The absurdity doctrine
applies to unambiguous statutes “as a means to avoid applying the unequivocal language of a statute. But the doctrine has been strictly limited.” Robbins v. Chronister, 435 F.3d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir.2006) (en banc). The absurdity doctrine applies “in only the most extreme of circumstances,” when an interpretation of a statute “leads to results so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense,” which is a “formidable hurdle” to the application of this doctrine. United States v. Husted, 545 F.3d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir.2008); Robbins, 435 F.3d at 1241 (quotation omitted). It is not enough to show that [the legislature] intended a different result from the one produced by the plain language of the statute.
In re Taylor, 737 F.3d 670, 681 (10th Cir. 2013). Interpreting § 7-4-211(c) according to its plain language – authorizing and requiring the Board to review complaints regarding a coroner’s failure to comply with the Board’s standards regarding coroner’s cases – does not lead to results so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense. To the contrary, such a plain and logical interpretation fits common sense and gives effect to all of the statute.