 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Worker's Compensation of Pohl5/25/1999
Starr remains controlling.
This court recognizes the well-established rule that "statutes are not to be applied retroactively unless so provided therein, and this is especially true when substantive rights of parties are involved." Bemis v. Texaco, Inc., 400 P.2d 529, 530 (Wyo. 1965). Therefore, this court will not apply a statute retrospectively in the absence of clear legislative intent. Edgcomb v. Lower Valley Power & Light, Inc., 922 P.2d 850, 859 (Wyo. 1996); Wyoming Refining Co. v. Bottjen, 695 P.2d 647, 650 (Wyo. 1985); Johnson v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 568 P.2d 908, 914-15 (Wyo. 1977). Here, the legislature's intent that the Medical Commission statute apply retrospectively could not be clearer. Our decision in Starr simply reflects our general rule that a statute will not be applied retrospectively in the absence of clear legislative intent. Now that the legislature has announced its intent, we no longer have reason to abide by the general rule. Therefore, Pohl's reliance on Starr is misplaced, and we will follow the legislature's intent that the statute creating the Medical Commission be applied retrospectively.
We also conclude that the expository legislation outlined above controls over prior, general legislation in the area. Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-602(b) (Michie 1997), the legislature has codified our general rule that a worker 's compensation claim is governed by the laws in effect at the time of the injury. See Wright v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 952 P.2d 209, 212 n. 1 (Wyo. 1998); Matter of Workers' Compensation Claim of Jacobs, 924 P.2d 982, 984 (Wyo. 1996). The above-quoted expository legislation conflicts with this general rule. When two legislative pronouncements conflict, we give effect to the most recent pronouncement in a given area of law. Department of Revenue and Taxation, Motor Vehicle Division v. Shipley, 579 P.2d 415, 417-18 (Wyo. 1978). In addition, specific legislation controls over more general legislation. Id.; Matter of Lyles, 957 P.2d 843, 846 (Wyo. 1998); Cf. Emulsified Asphalt, Inc. v. Transportation Comm'n, 970 P.2d 858, 864 (Wyo. 1998). Applying these principles, we conclude that the later, specific expository legislation cited above is controlling, and the Medical Commission had jurisdiction to hear Pohl's medically contested case.
Disputed Impairment Ratings
Pohl complains that the Division did not comply with the Worker 's Compensation Act when it evaluated her claim for an increase in incapacity under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-605(a) (Michie Rpl. June 1991). She contends that the Division acted contrary to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(m) (Michie 1997) (formerly -405(e) (Rpl. June 1991)) when it employed a physician to perform a "paper review" of Pohl's conflicting impairment ratings and later relied on the physician's review in denying benefits. We reject these contentions.
Section 27-14-405(m) provides
"If the percentage of physical impairment is disputed, the division shall obtain a second opinion and if the ratings conflict, shall determine the physical impairment award upon consideration of the initial and second opinion. Any objection to the final determination pursuant to this subsection shall be referred to the medical commission for hearing by a medical hearing panel acting as hearing examiner pursuant to W.S. 27-14-616."
In Pohl's case, the Division disputed the percentage of physical impairment and arranged for an IME. After the IME was completed, the Division employed a case review physician, Dr. MacGuire, to assist in "determin the physical impairment award upon consideration of the initial and second opinion." Clearly, the Division wa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|