*1 response to that subject, or the State's on

argument.

CONCLUSION statutory requirement no There is statutory implied read that an officer stop of a commercial warning for the consent a non-commercial the driver of vehicle to specimen requesting vehicle when a DWUI arrest. testing pursuant chemical properly court and the district The OAH driver Appellant's upheld suspension of his disqualification as well as license and we affirm. CDL WY 39 JENKINS, Appellant

Mark D. (Petitioner), rel., Wyoming, ex WYOMING STATE AND COMPEN- SAFETY WORKERS' (Respon- DIVISION, Appellee SATION dent).

No. 06-145. Wyoming. Supreme Court March

ISSUES states the issue before us Jenkins as: hearing properly apply

Did the examiner concluding Appellant in the law was a cov- employee Wyoming under the Work-

Compensation ers' Act? Wyoming Safety Compen-

The Workers (the Division) responds: sation Division Whether the Office of Administrative Hearings committed an error of law when it determined a officer is covered Wyoming Compensa- under the Workers' non-corporate tion Act when there are no employedby corporation? the

FACTS Representing Appellant: Schilling Michael dispute. in [¶ 3] The facts are not Jen Winn, P.C., Laramie, Wyo- Schilling & professional a kins is writer who works as an ming. independent maga contractor for Outside zine. preparer, On the advice of his tax Crank, Representing Appellee: Patrick J. regular Jenkins formed a Subsection C cor General; Attorney Wyoming John W. Ren- poration. Jenkins his wife were listed as neisen, General; Attorney Deputy R. Steven only the officers and the were em Czoschke, Attorney Senior Assistant Gener- Jenkins, ployees of Mark D. Inc. Jenkins al; Radogevich, and Kristi M. Assistant At- sought compensation coverage filing workers' torney Argument by General. Ms. Radose- Employer Registration the Joint form with vich. Wyoming Department Employment. the 7, 2002, VOIGT,C.J., Department On November GOLDEN, Before Employment notified HILL, KITE, BURKE, that his re JJ. Jenkins quest compensation coverage for workers' for HILL, himself as a officer of the Justice. approved. tion was (Jenkins) pro- [T1] Mark D. Jenkins is a 8, 2004, fessional writer who writes articles for Out- [¶ 4] On October Jenkins suf magazine independent side injury on contractor fered a severe wrist while rock elimb- purposes, ing during basis. For tax Jenkins formed a a retreat for staff and writers of Jenkins, corporation, magazine C Mark D. in Outside New Mexico. Jenkins Inc., with Report Injury himself and his wife as the sole filed a of. with the Division. 18, 2004, employees. officers and ob- On November the Division a issued compensation coverage tained workers' denying for Final Determination benefits: Find injury Jenkins. After an ing injury scope suffered while rock that the was not within the climbing writer; during a staff in Wyo retreat New Mexi- of Jenkins' as a co, compensa- ming jurisdiction Jenkins was awarded worker's did not have because the Mexico, hearing. benefits after a contested case accident occurred New and an The district court injury reversed the award con- sustained in the course of recreational cluding Wyoming Compen- that the Workers' seope or social events outside was of the (the Act) permit coverage sation Act did not employee definition of when an was required officers when there were no to attend the event. Jenkins non-corporate employees. objected officer to the Final Determination and re appeals quested hearing. that decision. We will affirm. a In its disclosure state- (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of there was a ment, added that the Division or otherwise not in accor- discretion Act whether question compensation law; could obtain workers' with dance non-corporate no there were coverage when (B) Contrary right, to constitutional corporation. After employees in the officer privilege immunity; power, hearing examiner hearing, case contested *3 (C) jurisdiction, statutory excess of In benefits, respect to With granted Jenkins authority lacking or limitations or coverage, the corporate officer issue of the statutory right; "(allthough the cor- that concluded examiner (D) procedure of Without observance employees, Jenkins and his has two poration law; required by or wife, is a the fact that Jenkins electing coverage only employee officer and (E) Unsupported by evi- substantial There benefits in this case. does not defeat in a on the record dence case reviewed that exclude provisions under the Act are no by agency hearing provided stat- of an coverage in this case." ute. petition a for re The Division filed question is a of The determinative issue here court, which reversed the in the district view concerning the construction of several law court concluded that of benefits. The award statutory provisions of the Act. Ann. language Wyo. Stat. plain the of statutes, primary our con- interpreting In 27-14-108(k)(Lexis- 27-14-102(a)(vii)and §§ legislature's the sideration is to determine 2005) may corporate officer be that a Nexis in intent. All statutes must be construed only corporation if the under the Act covered and, ascertaining in the mean- pari materia a other than employs a covered individual law, relating all to ing given of a statutes corporation corporate officer. Since Jenkins' subject having gen- same the same or the and his only employees, two Jenkins had and con- purpose eral must be considered officers, wife, the both were and harmony. Statutory in construction strued to that was not entitled court held Jenkins law, of question a of so our standard is ruling to appealed has that benefits. to inter- review is de novo. We endeavor this Court. legisla- pret in accordance with statutes begin by making an intent. We ture's OF REVIEW STANDARD ordinary the and obvi- inquiry respecting agency of ac Judicial review [T6] ac- meaning employed of the words ous § governed by Wyo. Ann. 16-8- tion is Stat. arrangement connec- cording to their and 2005): 114(c)(LexisNexis whole, the statute as a tion. construe We word, clause, every and giving effect to necessary a decision To extent to make the sentence, parts all of the and we construe reviewing court presented, when the and a statute is pari materia. When statute law, of questions all relevant shall decide unambiguous, we sufficiently clear and statutory pro- interpret and constitutional ordinary mean- plain and give effect to the visions, ap- meaning the or and determine the and do not resort ing of the words ageney of an action. plicability of the terms must statutory construction. We rules of determinations, making following the In meaning that will give a statute a not record or court shall review the whole susceptible of operation if it is nullify its party it a and due parts those of cited Moreover, will interpretation. we another preju- rule of account shall be taken of the stretch, a expand, or extend enlarge, reviewing shall: court dicial error. that do not fall within to matters statute (i) unlawfully agency action Compel express provisions. its unreasonably delayed; or withheld and Resort, Mountain Hole Muller Jackson 100, 9, 1162, (Wyo. (ii) % P.3d 1166 agency 139 unlawful and set aside 2006 WY Hold 2006) County, 2006 Sponsel v. Park action, (quoting findings conclusions found 6, ¶ 9, (Wyo.2006)). 126 P.3d WY to be: DISCUSSION argument coverage Jenkins' for un- upon capacity" Act der the is based "dual appeal this Resolution theory where for following of the turns on the construction provided previously is for under cited Act: provisions of the provisions corporation if the had elected cov- "Employee" any person engaged in means erage and the officer suffered a any any extrahazardous acting capac- work-related while in the appren- appointment, contract of hire or ity employee. argues, of an The Division ticeship, express implied, or oral or writ- held, the district court ten, minors, employed legally and includes available officers under aliens authorized to work the United provisions only of the Act if the justice, department States office of citi- employs individuals covered under subsec- services, zenship immigration (j) § tions 27-14-108 other than a *4 reasonably employer aliens whom the be- corporate corporation officer and the elected lieves, at the date of hire and the date of coverage agree for its officers. We with the upon analysis. based documentation the Division and district court's employer's possession, to be authorized to The Act it a corpo [¶9] makes clear that department work the United of States liability company ration or limited be must justice, citizenship immigra- office of and "employing" who individuals are "covered" "Employee" does not in- services. (a) (J) § under subsections or of 27-14-108. clude: plain language clearly The of the statute sets requirement corporation

forth a that a or liability company employ limited individuals (C) corporation An officer of a unless employees, as other than the offi coverage pursuant is elected to W.S. cers, coverage before 27-14-108(k). may be If elected. the intent had been to 27-14-102(a)(vil)(C) (Lex- Wyo. § Stat. Ann. coverage allow when there were no non- 2005) added). (emphasis isNexis employees, officer then Act Any corporation liability simply any would have stated that or limited com liability tion or pany employing pur company limited could elect individuals covered (a) coverage to obtain for its ()1 officers. suant to subsections or of this There would have been no need for the may coverage section elect to obtain phrase "employing pursuant individuals to this act for officers or limited its (a) (J)". subsections or We will not read a liability company by electing members any part super statute so as to render of it any cover or all of its officers or members fluous or without effect. notifying writing the division in of its upon registration election initial with the interpretation This of the statute [T10] is division, (30) thirty days prior or to the provisions consistent with other of the Act. beginning quarter. of a calendar Notwith "employee" specifically of ex- definition section, standing (J) of this proprietors, partners cludes sole of a busi- employer coverage shall not at withdraw partnership spouses dependants ness or (8) any during subsequent eight time employers living in the same household. quarters. Application calendar for termi 27-14-102(a)({vii). Wyo. § Ann. Stat. This nation of this subsection legislative contrary evidences a intent to Jen- in writing shall be filed with the division capacity" theory. kins' "dual (80) thirty days any not less than before corpo- Jenkins' has two quarter following eight calendar the initial employees. rate no other With- (8) quarters coverage. calendar any employees out covered under subsections 27-14-108(k) (LexisNexis Wyo. 27-14-108, § (J) § Stat. Ann. compensa- worker's 2005) added). (emphasis corpo- tion benefits are not available for the 27-14-108(a) Wyo. 27-14-108(G) § § 1. Stat. Ann. ex- concerns non-extrahazardous concerns concerns Wyo. employment. trahazardous while Stat. Ann. Jenkins, Ac D. Inc. Mark WY 40 officers of rate reversing court's order cordingly,the district DUNSMORE, Appellant Derek award of benefits hearing examiner's (Defendant), affirmed.2 KITE, J., dissenting opinion. files Wyoming, The STATE of KITE, J., dissenting. (Plaintiff). Appellee majority's disagree with the I No. 05-205. applicable statutes would reading of the of the Office of Admin the conclusion affirm Wyoming. Supreme Court of Mr. was cov Hearings that istrative insurance be compensation worker's March corporation an officer of a cause he was compensation worker's

had elected pursu to do as it was entitled for its officers the statute. plain language of ant to the 27-14-108(k) (LexisNexis §Ann. Wyo. Stat. 2005) corporation or limited provides, "Any employing individuals cou-

liability company *5 (J) this pursuant to subsections coverage under may elect to obtain section (em ...." for its this act added). undisputed It is phasis only ques So the employs Mr. Jenkins. an individual whether he was tion becomes (a) or to subsections pursuant "covered (a); by ()...." not covered subsection He is (J) however, by be he covered employer employee whose has cause he is an the act and made elected (k) does required. as Subsection payments employ say company must indi that the who are not before viduals statutory election for cover it can make the do not read into age of its officers. We legislature did language statutes which Wyoming not include. Stutzman v. Office ¶30, 16, 470, Eng'r, 130 P.3d 2006WY State State, 165, (Wyo.2006); 2004 WY KP v. ¶ 22, (Wyo.2004). 102P.8d the district court's I would reverse the matter for consider

decision and remand raised the divi ation of the second issue sion, injury was whether Mr. Jenkin's le. work-related. given parties. We need not address that issue argument sta- related to Jenkins' An additional ruling Jenkins was not covered independent its effect on our contractor and tus as officer. eligibility the Act as was also briefed his