*2 pendent question subcontractor. The THOMAS, CARDINE, Before MACY compensation coverage worker’s was then GOLDEN, JJ., LEIMBACK, litigated Albany in the County District Judge. District
Court. The court determined that Mr. compensable, West had suffered a work- CARDINE, Justice. injury related employed by while Jem. It Appellant sought declaratory judgment compensation awarded worker’s benefits to reimburse, required that she was not out Mr. West and to his estate as follows: $399,000 party of a third $15,687.69 Total Medical Total Total Court Costs $72,316.51 recovery, two-thirds of Temporary Disability 226.46 compensation paid worker’s benefits to de- 1,529.92 cedent’s survivor beneficiaries. The trial 54,872.44 Total Death Award party wrongful court held that the third $72,316.51 Total Benefits Awarded recovery subject statutory was to a West, personal representative Glo requiring lien reimbursement worker’s Mr. West’s filed a compensation benefits and further that the against action party third Brent & Wick- obligated State was not to file a creditor’s Products, (Brent lund Forest Inc. & Wick- claim in the decedent worker’s estate. lund). alleged The suit that Brent & Wick- We affirm. lund was liable for for Mr. West’s Appellant states the issues as follows: negotiated death. Mrs. West a structured Wicklund, settlement with Brent having & provisions Wyoming’s “1. The lien present $399,009.00. value of Compensation Worker’s Statute conflict with the Wyoming’s Wrong- Provision of settlement, Wyoming Based on the ful Death Statute that no debts of the requested State Treasurer reimbursement decedent be satisfied from $48,211.01, or two-thirds of the worker’s is, in death action. The issue benefits on account of prevail? which language statute will injuries Mr. Although West’s and death. “2. requires published Extant case law Mrs. West had notice to creditors claimant, including Wyo- the State of probate proceedings, the Treasurer ming, to file statutory a claim an estate in did not file notice of claim order to collect from an estate. The Mr. estate for West’s reimburse- Compensation Worker’s Division failed to ment. this of costs of Mrs. filed shаre collection. May West
On
declaratory judgment
ap-
in which
shall
The state treasurer
credit and
action
not have
argued
the Treasurer did
portion
to the ac-
she
receiving
After
right
paid,
reimbursement.
the awards
counts
which
were
*3
parties,
the trial
both
memoranda from
if
pro
necessary. Any
rata
re-
balance
findings
May 11,
of
on
issued
court
maining
paid
employee,
shall be
to the
finding
fact,
and
of law
order
conclusions
or
personal representative
per-
his
other
statute,
read
when
the
death
granted
recovery.
son
the
compen-
the worker’s
pari materia with
in
“(b)
injured employee
If an
has received
statutes,
for
prohibit
a lien
sation
did
act,
compensation under this
state
the
reimbursement of worker’s
through
right
the state treasurer has a
party
proceeds
on
of third
benefits
the
interest
in
and
all actions for
the
recovery. It ruled that
brought by any injured employee against
against
set-
lien
the
Treasurer had a valid
person other
his employer,
than
$48,-
proceeds in the
of
tlement
amount
by registered
be served
shall
or certified
timely appeal
Mrs.
filed
211.00.
West
complaint
copy
mail with a
of the
in
filed
this order.
the suit.
right
The State’s lien and
to reimburse-
settlement,
“(c) If
compromise
there is a
the
ment in this case werе obtained under
by
into
the
in
parties
or release entered
(June
Repl.),
former W.S. 27-12-104
person, other
claims
than the
provided as follows:
which
attorney general repre-
the
employer,
“(a)
employee
by
If an
covered
this act
senting the
made
state treasurer shall be
through
re-
27-12-101
27-12-804]
[§§
party
negotiations
in all
settle-
such
for
cre-
injury
an
under circumstances
ceives
ment, compromise or release. The attor-
legal
in
oth-
ating
liability
person
some
director,
general
pur-
ney
and the
for
damages,
to
employer
pay
er than the
poses
facilitating compromise and set-
of
employee
еngaged
if
in
the
extrahazard-
tlement, may
proper
in a
case authorize
employer
the time of
ous work for his
at
the
acceptance
the state of less than
injury
deprived
any compen-
of
is not
state treasurer’s claim
reimburse-
to
he is entitled under this
sation which
proceeds
any judgment,
The
of
ment.
pursue
remedy
He
at
may
act.
also
his
settlement, compromise or release are
person.
third
If the em-
law
in
of the
encumbered
a lien
favor
ployee
person
recovers from
third
the total
state to the extent of
amount
including judgment, compro-
any manner
the state
claim reimburse-
treasurer’s
release,
mise,
pro-
settlement or
the total
under
act. The lien shall re-
ment
this
ceeds,
regard
types
to
without
proceeds
have
main
effect until the
damages alleged
third-party
in the
ac-
parties entitled
distributed to the
been
tion,
recovery
of the
shall be divided
provi-
thereto
accordance with these
follows:
sions.
“(i)
deducting
After
the reasonable cost
“(d)
of the
injury
If the
causes
to exceed
recovery
or collection not
rights
and remedies in this
employee,
( n )
(½)
recovery,
one-third
one-half
obligations are
inure to and the
section
immediately
of the remainder shall be
representative
binding upon
personal
employee,
personal
paid
injured
to the
employee
of the deceased
the benefit
person granted
representative or other
dependents.”
or her
of his
(½)
up
shall
recovery
to one-half
right
Appellant
attacks
paid to
in reim-
the state treasurer
compensation under
recover worker’s
to
total
of all
bursement for the
amount
First,
grounds.
she
statute on several
this
or in
of a dis-
awards received
absence
statute,
applied
her
argues that
this
unpaid
to be
any
claimer
balances
case,
Wrongful Death
conflicts with the
under
injured employee
received
shielding
from cred
provision
him Act
including
this act
all monies
by a
behalf,
is survived
pro
in his
rata
itors when
deceased
less
state’s
(June
State,
Statute 1-38-102
tive intent. Longfellow
widow.
Repl.), dealing
with
actions, provides:
At issue is whether the claim and lien for
husband, wife,
“(b) If the deceased left a
can
be included in the
child,
mother,
father or
no debt
the meaning
phrase
“no debt of the
may
deceased
be satisfied out of the
may
deceased
pro-
be satisfied out of the
any judgment
obtained
any judgment
ceeds of
obtained
[under
any
brought
provisions
under the
action
Wrongful
Wrongful
Death
Act].”
of this section.”
Death Act does not contain а definition of
deceased,”
“debt
and we
locat-
have
Appellant contends that since Mr. West left
defining
ed no case law
that term. How-
died,
he
no
of his
wife when
“debt”
*4
ever, we find the definition of “debt” con-
proceeds
be satisfied out of the
of her
probate
tained in the
code useful because it
wrongful death settlement with Brent &
deals with debts of a decedent under sim-
Wyoming
Wicklund.
State Treasur-
ilar circumstances.
er’s claim for reimbursement of worker’s
benefits,
compensation
argues, repre-
she
2-l-301(a)(ix)
(July
Statute
sents such
a “debt”
deceased.
Repl.)
purposes
1980
defines
for
“debt”
of
“
responds
The State
that there is no con-
probate
code as follows:
in-
‘[d]ebts’
paid
injured
flict because monies
to the
clude liabilities
the decedent which sur-
of
worker do not constitute
of
“debts
the de- vive,
contract,
arising
whether
in
tort or
agree
cedent.” We
with the State that
added)
(emphasis
otherwise.”
As the State
these two statutes can be harmonized and
out,
points
obligation
for reimburse-
that the
reimbursement
and lien are
proceeds
ment of
death
is not a
Wrongful
not barred
Death Act.
liability
only
of the decedent since it
comes
into existence
the decedent is dead
construing
Our rules for
statutes are
after
and others receivе an award from a third
well established.
“
party on account of his death. Further-
language
‘If the
of a statute is clear
more,
only
wrong-
the lien attaches
to the
unambiguous,
and
must
we
abide
ful
recovery
and not to other assets
statute,
plain meaning of the
but where a
Thus,
of the decedent’s estate.
ambiguous,
statute is
the court will re
claim for reimbursement cannot be con-
general principles
statutory
sort to
“liabilit[y]
sidered a
the dece-
[or debt]
in
attempt
construction
an
to ascertain
dent” under either
language
of W.S.
Furthermore,
legislative intent.
it is a
1-38-102 or the
code definition.
statutory interpreta
fundamental rule of
Neither the
gen-
decedent nor his estate in
portions
tion that all
of an act must be
repaying
eral are liable for
worker’s com-
materia,
word,
pari
every
read in
pensation, and so it is not “his” debt. We
clause, and sentence must be construed
therefore hold that the
pro-
part
inoperative
superflu
so that no
or
”
ceeds in this
protected by
instance are not
ous.’
Paternity of JRW,
Matter
provision
which shields
1256,
(Wyo.1991), quoting
P.2d
1262-63
them from “debts of the decedent.”
Deloges
Comp.
v. State ex rel. Worker’s
Div.,
(ci
(Wyo.1988)
750 P.2d
Appellant
argues
next
that W.S. 27-
omitted).
tations
apply
12-104 does not
to the “death bene
Furthermore, “[ljegislative
рortion
intent should be
fit”
of worker’s
bene
ascertained,
nearly
possible,
paid
from the
fits
to Mr. West’s estate because it
language
light
of the statute
by”
employee,
viewed
was not “received
Mr.
object
purpose.”
West,
of its
paid
“in
his behalf.”
W.S. 27-
See
Moncrief
Harvey,
12-104(a)(i).
816 P.2d
agree
See
We
with the State that
also Allied-Signal,
Inc. v.
State Bd.
the death benefit was
on Mr. West’s
Equalization,
(Wyo.
dies,
behalf. When a covered worker
1991).
relating
Statutes
to the same
compensation replaces
salary
sub worker’s
his
ject
together
are
legisla
read
to ascertain
paying
dependents.
his
This benefit is
language
plain
of W.S. 27-12-
reрlace income which tation
obviously designed to
104, allowing
recoupment
de-
State to seek
earned
worker would have
circumstances,
alive.
is correct even
had he been
under these
pendents
though
surviving spouse
not re-
Furthermore,
language W.S.
plain
from a
expenses
party.
cover
third
these
in-
legislative intent to
shows a
27-12-104
we,
can
of unconstitu-
Nor
the absence
in the reimburse-
the death benefit
clude
disregard
legisla-
tionality, simply
what the
provisions. Wyoming
lien
Stat-
ment and
provided
ture has
order to achieve
27-12-104(c)
ute
states
“[t]he
sought-after result.
settlement, compromise
judgment,
any
by a
are
lien
really
оr release
encumbered
asks
case is
appellant
What
in this
extent of the total
of the state to the
recovery.
compen-
favor
She
for double
wants
treasurer’s claim
amount
state
from the
a third
sation benefits
State and
(emphasis
act.”
under this
Ap-
party
tort
for the same loss.
27-12-104(d),
added) Wyoming Statute
pellant argues that the
two recoveries
above,
contemplates
clearly
recov-
quoted
loss,
1-38-
the same
because W.S.
died:
in cases where the worker has
ery
102(c) specifically provides wrongful death
injury
“proba-
the death of the
“If the
causes
for the survivor’s loss of
*5
remedies in this
employеe,
rights
the
and
com-
companionship, society
ble future
and
obligations
inure
the
are
section
to and
thus
distin-
Appellant
attempts
fort.”
representative
binding upon
personal
damages
the
guish
under the
non-economic
for the
employee
deceased
benefit Wrongful
of the
Act from economic “dam-
Death
dependents.”
or her
of his
ages”
Compensation
under the Worker’s
However,
unjust-
Act.
a
is
such distinction
together,
reject
Reading these statutes
we
ified,
Wrongful Death Act allows
since the
that W.S. 27-12-104
appellant’s contention
economic and non-eco-
for both
apply
to the death benefit.
dоes
the
damages:
jury,
nomic
“The court or
Finally,
argues, since evi
appellant
be,
every
may
may
case
such action
medical bills is not
dence
decedent’s
damages, pecuniary
exem-
award such
and
into
in a
admissible
evidence
just.”
plary, as
deemed fair and
shall be
suit,
unaware that
jury
will be
l-38-102(c).
W.S.
expenses
deducted from its
these
will be
recovery.
compensation
slightly
different context
verdict worker’s
As we said
argues
Appellant
Stephenson
this has the effect of
v. Mitchell ex rel. Work
widow,
burdening
(Wyo.
is limited to recov
Dep’t,
who
99
Comp.
men’s
“care,
ery
1977):
for
comfort and
“
society,” with her deceased husband’s
еlementary
claim-
equally
‘It is
that the
bills,
will be
medical
since their cost
deduct
keep
allowed to
the
ant should not be
this
recovery.
her
While
be
ed from
his compensation
entire amount both
true,
compensa
if there were no worker’s
damage
his common-law
award and of
tion,
liable for her
appellant would still be
disposition of the
recovery. The obvious
bills, or at least for the
husband’s medical
[here,
give
employer
matter is to
provided
services
reasonable value of the
recov-
negligence
so much
State]
Doctrine,
Expenses
codi
Family
him.
him for
ery
necessary
to reimburse
is
(June
20-1-201
fied in our statutes at W.S.
outlay,
give the
and to
compensation
his
'Repl.), states that
employee
excess. This is fair
family
necessary expenses
“[t]he
everyone
employer
concerned:
[the
of the children
and
education
neutral,
who,
sense,
State],
in a fault
property
chargeable upon the
of both
even;
pays
person
the third
comes out
them,
wife,
and
or either of
husband
normally
exactly
damages he
would
jointly
sepa
they may
sued
which
be
correct,
since to reduce
pay, which is
rately.”
of the relation between
burden because
employer
employee
and the
would
recoupment of
merely seeks
The State
done
him which he has
interpre-
a windfall to
already paid out. Our
what it has
Moreover,
deserve;
employee
compensa-
and the
thereto.
worker’s
nothing to
wholly statutory
questions
tion is
gets
fuller reimbursement
actual
regarding public policy
possible
should be deter-
damages sustained than is
under
”
legislature,
mined
not the courts.
system
(quot-
compensation
alone.’
addition,
compensation
In
Larson,
‘worker’s
laws
ing
Compensa-
A.
Workmen’s
all-pervasive legislative
14-2,
(1976).)
constitute an
71.20 at
14-3
tion Law §
attempts
scheme which
to effect a com-
Interpreting
previous
version of W.S.
promise
employer
between the
and the
27-12-104,
Wyo-
we also said
Jackson
employee’s competing interests. Work-
ming
Treasurer ex rel. Workmen’s
State
reg-
er’s
laws are economic
(Wyo.1974),
Comp. Dep’t,
P.2d
whereby
legislature
ulations
has bal-
that it
”
competing
anced
societal
interests.’
the lawmakers’ intent that
“makes clear
(citations
Martinez
This is a different result majority’s than If one combines the conclusion pertained prior that which to 1973 that lien for reimbursement of death ben- [when wrongful the death statute was amend efits is a “debt” of the decedent with judgment in which the language the in Wetering indicating ed] that part death action did not become a judgments of the part estate, decedent’s subject probate estate and was not to logical conclusion is
1277
except
The failure to
ily have done so.
Compensation Division
the Worker’s
that
barring provision of
from the
a lien for
the State
may assert
The
judgment.
necessary
plain
wrongful death
the statute makes
against a
is
the Division
remaining
law-making
issue is whether
arm of
implication that
enforcing its lien because
government
foreclosed
did nоt intend
I
against the estate.
a claim
it failed to file
that the State should be relieved
* * *
foreclosed from
the Division is
submit
legislature
If the
did
requirement.
in the hands
collecting
from assets
the debt
say the door should be left
not see fit to
representative.
personal
of decedent’s
indefinitely for the State to come
open
legitimate
with its
claim
forward
(as
2-7-703(a)
amended
(Supp.1991)
W.S.
estate,
highly improper
it would be
as man-
notice to creditors
provide
read into its statute an
for this court to
Collection
dated
Tulsa Professional
exception
the enactment did not
which
478,
Services,
108
Pope,
v.
485 U.S.
Inc.
incorporate within it.
(1988))
see fit to
1340,
states in
notice articulated Tulsa Professional Services, legislature
Collection Inc. provide
has amended the Probate Code to type
for the of notice Tulsa Professional Services, 2- requires. Inc. W.S.
Collection (Supp.1991).
7-205 and 2-7-703 haveWe held that Tulsa Collection CARLSON; Carlson; Louis M. W. Lora Professional Services, apply retroactively Inc. does not Egge; Egge; Edwin Janieve Donnie probate proceedings rendered final be- Patton; Patton, Appel and Elizabeth 19, April fore that case was decided on (Plaintiffs), lants Johnke, 1988. Hanesworth v. v. probate proceeding A UNLIMITED, INC., Wyoming WATER final the court issues the becomes when (Defendant). Corporation, Appellee decree of Id. аt 177-78. distribution. However, probate of West’s estate was UNLIMITED, INC., Wyoming WATER yet April not final as of 1988. Our (Defendant), Corporation, Appellant concern in was that retroac- Hanesworth application long- many tive would disturb property rights. rights settled Since CARLSON; Carlson; Louis W. Lora M. arising out of the of decedent’s Egge; Egge; Edwin Janieve Donnie estate in this case were still unsettled at Patton; Patton, Appel and Elizabeth the time Tulsa Collection Professional (Plaintiffs). lees Services, decided, Inc. was our fears in Thus, Hanesworth would not arise here. if 90-216, Nos. 90-217. Compensation the Worker’s Division did Supreme Wyoming. Court of not receive “actual notice” within the meaning of Tulsa Collection Professional Dec. 1991. Services, Mullane, Inc. and then termi- pro- nation of its claim would violate due
cess, timely and failure to file in a manner
would foreclose Division’s claim. proper
Even if the Division received no-
tice, may it still have recourse. Statutes
providing timely that creditors file claims
against a decedent’s estate or be forever
barred do not invalidate debts which subsisting.
otherwise valid and Estate of
Peterson,
merely payment bar the collection or