Frantz v. Campbell County Memorial Hospital

932 P.2d 750, 1997 Wyo. LEXIS 34, 1997 WL 71067
CourtWyoming Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 21, 1997
Docket96-160
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 932 P.2d 750 (Frantz v. Campbell County Memorial Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Frantz v. Campbell County Memorial Hospital, 932 P.2d 750, 1997 Wyo. LEXIS 34, 1997 WL 71067 (Wyo. 1997).

Opinion

MACY, Justice.

The hearing examiner granted a summary judgment in favor of Appellee Campbell County Memorial Hospital (the hospital) and Appellee State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division (the division) on the claim for worker’s compensation benefits submitted by Appellant Merta Frantz (the claimant). The claimant filed a petition for review with the district court, and that court certified the case to the Wyoming Supreme Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

We affirm the hearing examiner’s decision.

ISSUES

The claimant seeks our review of a single issue:

1. Wyoming Statute 27-14-102[ (a) ](xi)(J) states (as applicable here) that a Worker[’s] Compensation claimant may not recover on a claim for a mental injuty where that mental injury is not the result of a compensable physical injury.
Does the application of that rule in this case violate the equal protection *752 clauses of both Wyoming’s constitution and the 14th amendment of the US constitution?

FACTS

The claimant worked for the hospital from April 29,1991, until June 27, 1995. She filed a worker’s compensation report of injury on July 5, 1995, alleging “[continuous unrelenting fear of job insecurity. Extreme & unbearable stress related to work environment, relationship to and treatment by senior management leading to emotional collapse.” The division denied the claimant’s request for worker’s compensation benefits, and the claimant objected to the division’s determination. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing.

The claimant, the division, and the hospital stipulated that the claimant did not suffer a physical injury which was compensable under the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act. The division and the hospital then filed a joint motion for a summary judgment. The hearing examiner granted the motion, citing Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(J) (Supp.1996) which excludes any mental injury from the definition of injury “unless it is caused by a compensable physical injury.” The claimant subsequently filed a petition in the district court for a review of that administrative action, and the district court certified the case directly to this Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We must adhere to various principles when we are addressing constitutional issues:

[Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and one who denies the constitutionality of a statute must establish that unconstitutionality. Our rule is that courts have a duty to uphold statutes, and any doubts with respect to this issue will be resolved in favor of constitutionality. Expressing this in another way, we have said that unconstitutionality must be “clearly and exactly shown beyond a reasonable doubt.” Stephenson v. Mitchell ex rel. Workmen’s Compensation Department, [569 P.2d 95, 97 (Wyo.1977) ]. Not only is the burden of showing the classification to be improper on the assailant, but if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived which will sustain the classification, [such facts] will be assumed to have existed when the law was passed.

Baskin v. State ex rel. Worker’s Compensation Division, 722 P.2d 151, 155-56 (Wyo.1986) (some citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

The claimant contends that, when the leg-. islature amended the definition of “injury” in § 27-14-102(a)(xi), it created two classes of workers: one class in which those workers who have sustained an injury as the result of a hazard in the workplace are fully compensated and another class in which those workers who have sustained a mental injury which did not result from a physical injury are not compensated. She claims that such classifications violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the Wyoming and the United States constitutions because the classifications do not serve a legitimate state interest. The hospital argues that the legislature validly exercised its statutory authority when it amended § 27-14-102(a)(xi) by adding subparagraph (J) and that this section does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the Wyoming and the United States constitutions. The division maintains that § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(J) does not violate Wyoming and federal equal protection guarantees because it applies equally to all persons who are similarly situated or, in the alternative, because the classifications bear a rational relationship to a legitimate state objective.

In 1994, the legislature amended the definition of “injury” in the worker’s compensation statutes so that a compensable injury is defined as being one which occurs simultaneously with or subsequent to a physical injury:

(a) As used in this act:
[[Image here]]
(xi) “Injury” means any harmful change in the human organism ... arising out of and in the course of employment_ “Injury” does not include:
[[Image here]]
*753 (J) Any mental injury unless it is caused by a compensable physical injury, it occurs subsequent to or simultaneously with, the physical injury and it is established by clear and convincing evidence, which shall include a diagnosis by a licensed psychiatrist or licensed clinical psychologist meeting criteria established in the most recent edition of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. In no event shall benefits for a compensable mental injury be paid for more than six (6) months after an injured employee’s physical injury has healed to the point that it is not reasonably expected to substantially improve.

Section 27-14-102(a)(xi)(J).

The intended purpose of worker’s compensation is not to provide full coverage health insurance. Graves v. Utah Power & Light Company, 713 P.2d 187, 190 (Wyo.1986). Worker’s compensation is designed to afford social insurance, but the legislature’s intended goals must also be achieved. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Division v. Patch, 798 P.2d 889, 841 (Wyo.1990). This Court has declared that, if an ordinary interest is involved, a worker’s compensation classification must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate state objective. Baskin, 722 P.2d at 155; see also Allen v. Natrona County School District No. One, 811 P.2d 1, 4 (Wyo.1991).

Although a split in authority exists, other states have adopted restrictions to the definition of injury which are similar to Wyoming’s exclusion of certain mental injuries. See Donald M. Zupanee, Annotation,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gordon v. State
413 P.3d 1093 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2018)
Powers v. State
2014 WY 15 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2014)
Wheeler v. STATE EX REL. WYOMING WORKERS'SAFETY & COMP. DIV.
2010 WY 161 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2010)
Herrera v. WORKERS'SAFETY & COMP. DIV.
2010 WY 103 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2010)
Torres v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'SAFETY & COMPENSATION DIV.
2004 WY 92 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2004)
Pinkerton v. STATE EX REL. WWSCD
939 P.2d 250 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
932 P.2d 750, 1997 Wyo. LEXIS 34, 1997 WL 71067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frantz-v-campbell-county-memorial-hospital-wyo-1997.