Law Library Letter

Summary 2013 WY 62

2013-05-17T09:02:00.001-07:00

Summary of Decision May 17, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: KIRK JACOBS v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION.

Docket Number: S-12-0220

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge

Representing Appellant: William G. Hibbler, Bill G. Hibbler, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: May 17, 2013

Facts: The Wyoming Workers’ Safety Compensation Division awarded benefits to Appellant, Kirk Jacobs, after he experienced a workplace injury. Mr. Jacobs sought payment for prescription medication that he claimed was related to his workplace injury. The Division denied the claim. Mr. Jacobs requested a contested case hearing, and the Medical Commission upheld the Division’s determination. Mr. Jacobs appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Medical Commission’s order. Mr. Jacobs challenged the district court’s decision in this appeal.

Issues: Mr. Jacobs states the issues as follows:

1. Was the commission decision holding that Mr. Jacobs did not meet his burden of proof that he was entitled to continuation of medical benefits supported by substantial evidence?

2. Did the Division’s prior determination, assigning a 78% whole body permanent physical impairment rating, establish as a matter of law that Mr. Jacobs’ chronic abdominal pain was directly related to his initial compensable toe injury?

3. Did the commission properly apply the recognized second compensable injury burden of proof?

The Division phrases the issues as follows:

1. Did the Commission apply the proper burden of proof for a second compensable injury when it required Jacobs to establish a causal connection between his abdominal pain and his Keflex ingestion?

2. Did substantial evidence support the Commission’s determination?

Holdings: Mr. Jacobs was required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was a direct causal relationship between his accident and his abdominal pain. The record revealed that the Commission correctly applied the requisite burden of proof. The Commission’s order correctly cites the applicable law regarding the burden of proof and demonstrates its understanding that the claimant had the burden of proving the elements of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The Commission concluded that Mr. Jacobs “failed to present sufficient credible evidence to establish that his current abdominal care and treatment causally related to the work-related injury.” Although the Commission did not directly state that Mr. Jacobs failed to prove the elements “by a preponderance of the evidence,” it is clear from the context of the Commission’s order that it applied the burden correctly. Accordingly, the Court found no error in the Commission’s application of Mr. Jacobs’ burden of proof. Affirmed.

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

[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. 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]

Summary 2013 WY 61

2013-05-17T08:54:00.002-07:00

Summary of Decision May 17, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Remanded.

Case Name: PAUL ROCK, DARI QUIRK & ERNEST KAWA v. MARY LANKFORD, in her official capacity as Sublette County Clerk.

MARY LANKFORD, in her official capacity as Sublette County Clerk v. PAUL ROCK, DARI QUIRK & ERNEST KAWA

Docket Number: S-12-0216; S-12-0217

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County, the Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Paul Rock, Dari Quirk, and Ernest Kawa: Sky D. Phifer, Phifer Law Office, Lander, Wyoming.

Representing Mary Lankford, in her official capacity as Sublette County Clerk: Neal R. Stelting, Sublette County and Prosecuting Attorney, Pinedale, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: May 17, 2013

Facts: In August of 2011, the voters of Sublette County approved a ballot proposition increasing the size of the county commission from three to five. Before the proposed change could be implemented in the primary and general elections to be held in 2012, a second ballot proposition reducing the size of the commission from five back to three was submitted to the voters in May of 2012. The proposition passed, and Sublette County Clerk Mary Lankford determined that the second proposition returned the size of the commission to three, and therefore held an election for the one commission seat which would have been open if there had been no ballot propositions.

Appellants Rock, Quirk, and Kawa challenged Lankford’s decision, claiming that the additional seats permitted by the August 2011 ballot proposition could not be eliminated until they were filled, and that the May 2012 special election decreasing the number of seats was improper and void. Lankford disagreed with Appellants’ interpretation of the applicable statutes, and she moved to dismiss the complaint because it was untimely and brought by an insufficient number of electors under statutes governing ballot proposition contests. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but agreed with Lankford that the May 2012 election was proper, and granted her summary judgment.

The case came to the Supreme Court as two separate appeals. Appellants Rock, Quirk, and Kawa challenged the district court’s decision as to the interpretation of the statute governing increases and decreases in county commissions in Case No. S-12-0216. Lankford appealed the district court’s decision denying her motion to dismiss in Case No. S-12-0217, and raised the same issue as an alternative ground for affirmance in Case No. S-12-0216.

Issues: 1. Did Appellants’ claim amount to an election contest of a May 2012 ballot proposition under Wyoming Statutes § 22-17-105?

2. If so, did Appellants meet the requirements to maintain a ballot contest pursuant to the above statute so that the district court had jurisdiction over the dispute?

Holdings: The Court found that Appellants’ claims are an election contest, that they were not timely filed or brought by a sufficient number of electors, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims. Although the Court’s decision upholds the 2012 election as did that of the district court, the Court found the district court’s decision to be void and remanded for dismissal.

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

[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. 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]

Summary 2013 WY 60

2013-05-15T08:15:00.001-07:00

Summary of Decision May 15, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF ROBERT A. SANDS v. RICHARD BROWN, Guardian and Conservator.

Docket Number: S-12-0209

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Michael K. Davis, Judge

Representing Appellant: Mitchell E. Osborn, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: No appearance.

Date of Decision: May 15, 2013

Facts: The district court entered orders appointing Richard Brown as guardian and conservator for Robert A. Sands. Mr. Sands sought to terminate the guardianship and the district court denied his petition. Six months later, however, the district court held a review hearing and terminated the guardianship. Mr. Brown filed a motion for attorney fees and costs and the district court reopened the guardianship for the purpose of deciding the motion. Before the motion was heard, Mr. Sands filed a complaint alleging that Mr. Brown had breached his duties. After a hearing, the district court entered an order ruling in favor of Mr. Brown on Mr. Sands’ complaint and awarding Mr. Brown and his attorney fees and costs. Mr. Sands appealed claiming the district court erred when it denied his petition to terminate the guardianship, reopened the guardianship for the purpose of awarding fees and costs and dismissed his complaint.

Issues: We rephrase the issues Mr. Sands presents as follows:

1. Whether the district court properly continued the guardianship and conservatorship of Mr. Sands over his objection and the objections of this family members.

2. Whether the evidence supports the district court’s holding that Mr. Brown substantially complied with the guardianship and conservatorship statutes and did not breach his fiduciary duties.

3. Whether the district court properly ruled on the matters asserted in Mr. Sands’ complaint at the final hearing on Mr. Brown’s petition for fees and costs.

Mr. Brown did not file a brief in this Court.

Holdings: At no time during the hearing did Mr. Sands’ counsel object to the proceedings. To the contrary, he voluntarily participated in the proceedings when, in response to the court’s statement that somebody had to address the misconduct issue and maybe it should be the party alleging it, counsel stated he “would be glad to go first” and proceeded to make an opening statement and call and examine witnesses to testify in an effort to prove Mr. Brown’s misconduct. Even when the district court stated that it intended to enter judgment and informed counsel that he had been “completely heard,” no objection was made. Likewise, when the district court made its ruling, counsel did not object. The Court held that any claim of error in the proceedings was waived by counsel’s unequivocal manifestation of intent to participate and failure to object. Affirmed.

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

[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. 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]