Scheneman v. Div. of Workers' Safety and Comp
In Scheneman v. Div. of Workers' Safety and Comp., 956 P.2d 344, 351 (Wyo. 1998), a final determination was issued to Scheneman denying benefits for a coronary condition because he had failed to provide proper documentation of his condition. Id. at 346-47.
The final determination provided a date by which Scheneman had to object and request a hearing. Several days after that deadline had passed, Scheneman's request for hearing was received by the Division, and the Division issued a notice of late response. From his objection to that notice of late response, the Division granted Scheneman a hearing before its IHU. Id. at 347.
The IHU hearing officer made recommended findings of facts and conclusions of law that determined the Division had properly advised Scheneman of all deadlines and had properly computed those deadlines. Based on these conclusions, Scheneman's request for hearing was ruled untimely, and the final determination was not subject to further administrative or judicial review. Id. at 347-48.
On appeal, the Court determined that, where the statute prohibited review of a final determination before either the OAH or the Medical Commission when the request for hearing was untimely, the Division did have statutory authority to promulgate rules and regulations creating the IHU to review processing decisions that a request for hearing was untimely. Id. at 349-50.
In Scheneman, the IHU's jurisdiction over the procedural aspect of processing a claim was distinguished from a claimant's substantive right to a contested case hearing before the OAH or the Medical Commission that is fixed at the time of injury. Id. at 351.
Although the statute terminated Scheneman's substantive right to a contested case hearing on the denial of benefits, we held that IHU's jurisdiction over the preliminary processing issue did not adversely affect his rights. Id. at 351.
The Court then went on to review whether substantial evidence supported the IHU's decision that Scheneman's request for hearing was untimely. Id.
Thus, Scheneman is clear, the IHU has jurisdiction over the procedural matter of whether a request for hearing was untimely.