IN RE CLAIM OF FELIX, 98-174.
Decision Date | 27 July 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 98-174.,98-174. |
Parties | In The Matter of The Worker's Compensation Claim of Adrian R. FELIX, An Employee of Brown Enterprises: Adrian R. Felix, Appellant (Petitioner/Claimant), v. STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Donald J. Sullivan of Sullivan Law Offices, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Appellant.
William U. Hill, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Bernard P. Haggerty, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Haggerty, for Appellee.
Before LEHMAN, C.J., THOMAS, GOLDEN, TAYLOR,1 JJ., and KAUTZ, D.J.
The Office of Administrative Hearings denied Appellant Adrian R. Felix benefits under Wyoming's workers' compensation law. His appeal presents the issue of whether an alien (a non-U.S. citizen) who is not authorized to work in the United States can be covered by Wyoming's workers' compensation. We hold that an alien who is not authorized to work in the United States is not an "employee" under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(vii), and is not covered by Wyoming's workers' compensation.
Appellant, Adrian R. Felix, states a single issue for review:
Whether the hearing officer erred in his application of the rule of inclusio unius est exclusio alius [sic] and thereby misinterpreted the Worker's Compensation statute to exclude this worker from coverage.
Appellee, the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, defines the issue to be decided as:
The relevant facts in this case are uncomplicated. Brown Enterprises hired Adrian R. Felix to operate a potato "seed cutter" on June 10, 1997. Felix was not a U.S. citizen, and was not authorized to work in the United States by the United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
On June 19, 1997, Felix injured his arm while operating the seed cutter. Felix and Brown filed a joint injury report with the Workers' Compensation Division. The Division denied benefits because Felix was not an "employee" as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(vii). Brown objected and requested a hearing on behalf of Felix.
Following a hearing on January 22, 1998, a hearing examiner found that an alien not authorized by the United States government to work in this country cannot be an "employee" covered by Workers' Compensation in Wyoming. Felix appealed the hearing examiner's decision to the district court, and the matter was certified to us pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).
We review a case certified under W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) using appellate standards applicable to a reviewing court of the first instance. Weaver v. Cost Cutters, 953 P.2d 851, 854 (Wyo.1998). W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) limits our review to matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999), which states, in relevant part:
We give no deference to the hearing examiner's conclusions of law. Shaffer v. State ex rel., Wyo. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 960 P.2d 504, 506 (Wyo.1998). Statutory construction or interpretation is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, 918 P.2d 980, 983 (Wyo.1996)
.
State ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division v. Bruhn, 951 P.2d 373, 376 (Wyo.1997) ( )(citations omitted).
A statute is ambiguous if it is subject to varying interpretations. It is "unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree to its meaning with consistency and predictability." Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 813 P.2d 214, 219-20 (Wyo.1991).
"EMPLOYEE"
Benefits under Wyoming's workers' compensation statutes are available only to workers who meet the statutory definition of "employee." That definition is found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(vii) (Michie Cum Supp.1996), which states:
(Emphasis added.) The words used in this statute are clear and unambiguous. They clearly indicate that aliens authorized to work in the United States are to be included as "employees" for workers' compensation. The statute does not, however, specify whether aliens not authorized to work in the United States are excluded as "employees." Because the statute does not specifically address the status of aliens who are not authorized to work, "we are left to make what we think is a logical inference of the legislative intent." Basin Electric Power Cooperative v. Bowen, 979 P.2d 503, 508 (Wyo.1999) (quoting State v. Stovall, 648 P.2d 543, 545 (Wyo.1982)).
By applying the following rules of statutory construction, we determine that aliens not authorized to work in the United States are not considered "employees" under Wyoming's workers' compensation statutes and are not eligible for workers' compensation coverage. In construing a statute we "give effect to every word, clause and sentence and construe all components of a statute in pari materia." Parker Land and Cattle Company v. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo.1993). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(vii) expressly lists "aliens authorized to work by the United States department of justice, immigration and naturalization service" as "employees" who may be covered by workers' compensation. This specific phrase is meaningless if all aliens are considered "employees" whether authorized to work in this country or not. If the legislature intended that all employed aliens be covered by workers' compensation it would not have precisely stated that aliens authorized to work here are considered employees. To give effect to all the language in the statute, we conclude that an alien not authorized to work in the United States is not an "employee" under § 27-14-102(a)(vii).
"Generally, a statute that specifically names the persons affected is to be construed as excluding from its effect all those not expressly mentioned." Flores v. Flores, 979 P.2d 944, 947 (Wyo.1999). This is an application of the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," which means "[w]here a statute enumerates the subjects or things on which it is to operate, or the persons affected, or forbids certain things, it is to be construed as excluding from its effect all those not expressly mentioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Design Kitchen and Baths v. Lagos
... ... As a result, he filed a claim for workers' compensation with the Commission. Aside from the issues of accidental injury, causal ... Felix v. State ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 986 P.2d 161 (Wyo. 1999) ... That ... ...
-
Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation, Inc.
... ... that the document relied on by these third-party plaintiffs to support their indemnification claim is not an enforceable contract ... For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude ... (revising definition of "employee" to include "[e]very person, including aliens and minors"); Felix v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 986 P.2d 161, 163 (Wyo.1999), 1999 Wyo. LEXIS ... ...
-
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
... ... claim for workers' compensation benefits was accepted by the State Compensation Fund ("SCF"). In February ... See Felix" v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 986 P.2d 161, 164 (Wyo.1999) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Rajeh v. Steel City Corp., 03-MA-102.
... ... He filed a claim for workers' compensation on November 20, 1997. The claim was initially allowed. However, Steel ... {¶ 43} Similarly, in Felix v. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div. (Wyo.1999), 986 P.2d 161, the Wyoming Supreme Court held ... ...