*1 1.02, judgment of the trial court Rule W.R. is af- consider this contention. firmed. A.P.
V argu final fifth and Weisbrod’s
ment, trial court’s he asserts error partnership. interest in the
valuation of conflict on a claim
His assertion is based
by the
oral
made
between an
statement.
ROBINSON,
Richard
findings
judge during trial and written
(Plaintiff),
judgment.
final
by the court
its
made
v.
appraisal intro
He also contеnds that the
BELL,
by Ely
properly
Trucking,
calculated.
duced
Bell
d/b/a
exists,
Company, Appellees
express
inconsistency
writ
When
(Defendants).
findings
supersede informal oral
ten
will
Mor
Gill
from the bench."
remarks made
No. 88-58.
Inc.,
Sutoris,
tuary
Kan.
v.
Supreme
Court of
(1971); Newton v.
Road
State
Comm’n,
2d
over oral of Weisbrod’s inter value question partnership
est in the is a of fact. reviewing appeal, factual issue on
When accept prevailing
we the evidence of the true, leaving entirely
party as out the evi therewith, giv presented in conflict
dence
ing every may inference which favorаble fairly reasonably from the
be drawn
prevailing party’s evidence. Pancratz
Company, Inc. v. Kloefkom-Ballard
Constr./Dev., Inc.,
(Wyo.
1986). Although granted judgment was Weisbrod, accepted
favor of the court had
Ely’s appraisal partner of the value of the
ship, prevailing party on and she was Industri Anderson v. Foothill issue. Bank,
al While conflicting presented at
there was evidence
trial, presented by Ely sup the evidence
ported finding of court. The the trial findings presumed
trial court’s are correct appeal
and will not be disturbed on unless evidence,
they are inconsistent with the erroneous,
clearly contrary great Pancratz,
weight supra. of the evidence. find no error in the value determined
We
by the trial court. *2 Appellant’s Complaint
3.Whether regard dismissed should have been with Company. to Defendant Genuine Parts Bell, Appellant was a truck driver for operating as a contract carrier for who was Company, apparently a dis- September tributor for NAPA.1 On 1986, appellant severely injured his back as “cage” attempted he to unload a of auto truck at a parts frоm the back of his Casper. NAPA store in ap- requested After Bell that pellant Wyoming not file a worker’s com- pensation as NAPA had workman's claim coverage insurance in Colora- through Appel- Sentry do Insurance Co. necessary Sentry with lant filed the forms employee’s report and an Insurance Co. Compensation Di- injury with the Workers’ Wyoming in Work- vision responded with ers’ Division directing appellant to file all claims a letter Sentry as in Colorado with Insurance Co. company requested by that insurance and R.E. Rauchfuss of Beech Street Law Of- advising him that thеre would be no cover- fices, Casper, appellant. age Wyoming as Bell did not have a inju- A month after the Wyoming account. Laird, appellees. Casper, J. Dallas by Sentry In- ry, appellant was informed that he was not covered surance Co. CARDINE, C.J., Before and living and company since he had been THOMAS, URBIGKIT, and MACY During working exclusively Wyoming. GOLDEN, JJ. applied Bell the month of December Wyo- received an account with the and MACY, Justice. ming Compensation Division and Workers’ Appellant appeals Robinson Richard reports employees monthly filed his nеgligence dismissing from an order earnings period for the from December liability against appellees and strict action through 1986. Bell then November Bell, (Bell) Trucking, Bell Gene d/b/a payments and filed a re- made retroactive Company. Parts Genuine Appellant began pоrt appellant’s injury. We reverse. receiving Wyoming January following 1987. Appellant raises the issues: employer destroyed 1. Whether its 31, 1987, neg- appellant filed a On March recovery by its ligence action and strict comply when it failed to with worker’s appellees, seeking special actual and dam- statutes; ages personal injuries he received dur- involving op- ing employment waived all the course of his Whether
portunity employer by to recover from ultrahazardous activities and a time appellees to maintain accеpting worker’s bene- when failed fits; for him. relationship 1. The between Genuine Parts Com- record. pany clearly and NAPA is not established in the Company, Atlantic negligence alleged culpable P.2d 198
also
Richfield
co-employee.
Bell as a
granted
appellees’
Thе district
court
In determining
appellant’s
dismiss, finding that
amended motion
against appellees
claim
was barred
he
appellant’s
barred because
Act,
election
receive
benefits under the
receive worker’s
had elected to
upon Llewellyn
court
district
rеlied
appellant
failed
tion benefits and
had
Smith,
(Okla.1979),
and H.L.
*3
against
co-em-
of action
a
to state
Kay
Hutton
Co. v.
&
District Court of
parties presented, and
ployee. Since the
(Okla.1965).
County,
398 P.2d
530
These
considered, matters out-
the district court
cases, however,
premised
were
on an exclu
pleadings,
appellees’
side the
we will treat
remedy provision
sive
in the Oklahoma
dismiss,
order,
motion to
and the court’s
as
compensation
which
scheme
was
summary judgment.
one for
W.R.C.P.
significantly
Wyoming
different
than its
12(c).
statute,
counterpart. The Oklahoma
Okla.
85,
1970),
grant
summary
(West
proper
provided
The
of
Stat.Ann. tit.
12§
findings
judgment requires
compensation
the dual
that worker’s
was the exclu
remedy
genuine
injured employee except
there is no
issue of material fact
sive
to an
prevailing party
and that the
is entitled to when the
“has failеd to secure
as a matter of law. Teton the
judgment
payment
of
for his in
Plumbing
Heating,
Inc.
v. Board
jured employee,”
in
which case an action
of
Trustees,
County
Laramie
School District
would lie.
Oklahoma
The
Su
One,
Court,
cases,
Number
preme
by the court’s district decision on these Wyoming remedy provi- exclusive Id. issues. case applicable sion this was (c) of case, 27-12-103.3 Subsection that sec-
To resolve the issues we § rights injured tion established the provisions must refer of to the relevant the noncomplying employee as em- Wyoming Compensation Worker’s Act2 and ployer: apply interpreta- our established rules for
tion of these This any statutes. Court has con- act does not or affect This limit sistently by any held that worker’s or and his liberally dependents inju- statutes are to be construed so an industry, injured employed by rather than an work- ries while the em- received man, when the the time of plоyer bears burden of acci- the industrial v. Wyoming injuries qualified Lehman State ex rel. has not dents. Division, eligible Workers’ this act employees, having or (Wyo.1988). Conversely, qualified, we have is either premium employer immunity provisions delinquent payment held that on earnings narrowly injured employеe’s the Act be construed. an are to three Corpora- Stratman (3) Beverage v. Admiral immediately prior months date tion, v. (1) Fiscus (Wyo.1988); injury, quarterly payroll or one statute, (Worker’s Chapter Wyo. 2. 12 of Title 27 Com- 3. The exclusive current -805) pensation, repealed (1977), 27-12-101 to repeаled §§ Stat. 27-14-104 is similar to § Chapter (Wyo.Stat. 27- §§ recreated as 27-12-103. § (1977)) July 14-101 to effective -804 and, This case arose under the earlier Act unless indicated, opinion otherwise reference in this prior will be to the Act. price reporting period privileged pay when to re- an has tо to obtain employee’s em- port quarterly. When injured employee from suit the month or ployment starts within regardless of whether or not the yearly quarter of the date received worker’s benefits. not delinquency status mentioned, as Appellant, does contest regular apply until after shall court’s dismissal of the district his cause of date. payroll reporting negligence culpable action for added.) nothing (Emphasis There is in this alleged co-employee, Bell as an and that requires an statute which decision the district court will stand. to either receive make an election issue, however, Regarding appellant’s final employer. Act or sue his This readily the record reveals that the amended not read words into a statute Court will motion to dismiss and the court’s order there. which are not Wilcoxson Em- at, dismissing the action not directed were Security Wyo- ployment Commission of consider, they nor did the claim (Wyo.1987); ming, 741 P.2d Johnston Company. Dismissal of the *4 Trustees, District #1 v. Board School of against party of action was West, County, Wyoming, 661 Sheridan therefore error. (Wyo.1983). contrary, P.2d 1045 To the it pro- Reversеd and remanded for further does not is clear that the statute limit or ceedings opinion. consistent with this any right by employee of affect an unqualified employer. an Further- CARDINE, C.J., dissenting statute, filed a more, nowhere this nor else- Act, opinion. suggested remotely where the is it employеr that an can obtain from CARDINE, Justice, dissenting. Chief by applying suit for a worker’s I dissent. employee tion his account after has been Although injured. we have said that im- majority opinion The essence of the is munity provisions narrowly will be con- strued, Stratman, 974, 760 P.2d the conclu- “(tjhere nothing is in this statute [W.S. require sion we reach here does not nar- requires employee which an 27-12-103] inevitably row construction but flows to make an election to either receive ben- plain wording the of the The statute. clear employer.” the Act or sue efits under his import that, of the statutе is an when em- nothing There is in the requires act that an ployer qualified was not Act under the case, employee anything. to do injury the time of employee, to an the however, employee something: the did he employer immunity.4 had no applied for and elected tо receive worker’s employer permitted escape If an to were compensation question benefits. The with liability simply from suit because his em- presented which we are is what was the ployee accepted if benefits under the Act or effect of that еlection. employer qualify the permitted were to an 27-14-203(a) provides W.S. employee account under the Act after his “[a]ny employer applying for cover- injured, was accident the industrial account eligible or, age employees ob- funded, propеrly would never be as it after act, taining coverage any under this em- employer’s monetary would often be to the ployer failing, refusing neglecting or to advantage, considering penalty the even payments required by make this act on provisions noncompliance for contained in the date due any whom 27-12-207, employee an to wait until § injured employee is held entitled to injured becoming qualified before under compensation obviously the Act. is worker’s is liable Immunity from suit employers equal an intended for to to the state an amount to inсentive all for qualify Qualification under payment the Act. is the awards entered for to or for Titus, involving employer payment premiums. 4. This is not a case an with See Mauler v. qualified delinquent account who is in his 508, If employee (1979). under this act. the em- In Llewellyn v. fails, ployer neglects Smith, оr refuses to satis- (Okla.1979), 593 P.2d fy liability, court, the amount shall quoting be recov- from H.L. Hutton & v.Co. ered in the name civil action of the Kay District Court County, 398 P.2d entry final (Okla.1965), director. order stated: hearing approving division examiner injured ‘“One in the course of his em- allowing compensation an awаrd ployment, application who has made prima proof is facie of the compensation under the Workmen’s Com- failing comply to with this act.” pensation Law and has been awarded added) (emphasis compensation for his has made his election of nоt, precluded remedies and is In this case the had at the thereby, and he cannot thereafter main- injury, applied coverage time of under tain an action compensation Appel- the worker’s statute. employer for injuries, the same eligible employee an even
lant was though the provide latter has failed act. obtained un- compensation provi- insurance under the appellant applied der the act. When ” sions of that act.’ benefits, worker’s the em- ployer became liable to State to contin- Our provides act payments or ue for all awards entered for for an payment under the act. awarding employ- The order benefits to the the act at the time of the accident. When in liability employer, ee resulted of the avails himself of that although at the time of thе injury he had is awarded worker’s *5 un- complied not with the worker’s act, employer der the is entitled to the tion act. afforded the act from suit I difficulty concluding have no that the Reading civil action. all sections of the legislature employee intended that the have Wyoming Worker’s inAct either employer to sue the in a materia, pari legislature it seems clear the civil action to damages recover his or make employee intended to afford to the contributing under the act a thereby act and secure an award remedies, i.e., choice of recovery of worker’s benefits. This worker’s or a civil action choice of remedies is a advan- considerable employer. is tage injury often his entitled to one or the other but not activity results from his own and the em- both. ployee does not hаve a viable civil case employer. (Appellant may have problem case.) in this
If pursue chooses to a civil
case rather compensation, than worker’s
substantial can be recovered. who failed to contribute is SOWERWINE, Jr., Elbert O. penalized, exposure for he has to a civil (Defendant), action and to strict compensation. just That is a result for all Wyoming, The STATE of parties. support This conclusion finds (Plaintiff). Appellee among authorities which have held that an injured employee No. 89-8. option has “the of either pursuing civil action Supreme Court of filing application workmen’s com Feb. pensation Shaughnessy benefits.” v. Boh net, (N.D.1981). 303 N.W.2d See Co., Shope
also v. Don Coe Const. 92 N.M.