Case Title: Gonzales v. Grass Valley Mobile Home Park

Citation: 

Docket Number: 95-236

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Gonzales v. Grass Valley Mobile Home Park1997 WY 31933 P.2d 484Case Number: 95-236Decided: 02/28/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

In 
the Matter of the Worker's Compensation

Claim of Samuel GONZALES, Appellant 
(Employee-Claimant),

v.

GRASS VALLEY MOBILE HOME PARK, 
Appellee

(Employer-Respondent),

v.

STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' 
COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee

(Objector-Defendant).

 

 

 

Sharon M. Rose of Vehar, 
Beppler, Lavery & Rose, P.C., Evanston, for 
Appellant.

 

John C. Phillips of Phillips 
Law Offices, Evanston, for Appellee Grass Valley Mobile Home 
Park.

 

William U. Hill, Attorney 
General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General; Jennifer A. Evans, Assistant Attorney General, 
Cheyenne; and Mark W. Harris, Special Assistant Attorney General, Evanston, 
for Appellee State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Division.

 

Before TAYLOR, 
C.J.,* and THOMAS, MACY, and LEHMAN, JJ., and KAUTZ, D.J. 

* Chief Justice effective 
7/1/96.

 

KAUTZ, 
District Judge. 

[¶1]      Appellant applied 
for worker's compensation benefits. The Office of Administrative Hearings ruled 
that appellant's employment was not covered by worker's compensation, and denied 
benefits. Appellant sought review in the district court which certified the case 
to this court. We find the administrative hearing examiner's decision supported 
by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, and 
affirm.

 

I. ISSUES

 

[¶2]      Appellant, Samuel 
Gonzales (Gonzales), presents these issues:

 

A. Was Employee/Claimant involved in an 
extrahazardous employment covered under the Workers' Compensation Act at the 
time he suffered an on the job injury?

 

B. Is the denial of worker's compensation benefits to 
the appellant a violation of his rights to equal protection and substantive due 
process?

 

II. FACTS

 

[¶3]      The parties 
stipulated to the facts as follows. Grass Valley Mobile Home Park and Meadow 
Vista Mobile Home Park (Mobile Home Parks) located in the Evanston, Wyoming area 
rented lots to individuals who placed their own mobile homes on lots and rented 
to individuals several mobile homes owned by the Mobile Home Parks and situated 
on their lots. In either case, the Mobile Home Parks did not rent to transient 
tenants.

 

[¶4]      The Mobile Home 
Parks hired helpers to perform maintenance of the common areas of the Mobile 
Home Parks, including spraying weeds, mowing lawns, repairing fences, and 
hauling garbage. The helpers also performed work on the Mobile Home Parks to 
make the lots suitable for mobile home placement and hookup. In addition, the 
helpers performed basic cleaning, repair and remodeling work in the Mobile Home 
Parks' rentals consisting of hooking up plumbing, removing and replacing vinyl 
and carpeting, putting up paneling, 
thawing frozen pipes, and repairing any other problems that arose in the rental 
units. When mobile homes were moved onto or off the lots, the helpers performed 
the set-up work, including using hydraulic jacks to set the mobile home on 
concrete blocks, removing the axles, insulating and skirting the mobile 
home.

 

[¶5]      Gonzales was 
employed as a helper by Grass Valley Mobile Home Park (Grass Valley). His 
primary responsibilities were the maintenance of the common areas, repair and 
remodeling of the mobile home rentals, and assistance in the set up of mobile 
homes as they were moved onto the lots. On October 31, 1994, Gonzales was 
assigned to skirt a mobile home that had recently been moved onto a lot in Grass 
Valley. He suffered injury when he fell backwards over an axle which had 
previously been removed from the mobile home by another 
employee.

 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

[¶6]      This appeal 
challenges the conclusions of law reached by the administrative hearing 
examiner. "Conclusions of law of an administrative agency are affirmed if they 
are found to be in accordance with law." Matter of Corman, 909 P.2d 966, 970 
(Wyo. 1996).  "When we review an 
agency's conclusions of law, we correct its errors `if the "correct rule of law 
has not been invoked and correctly applied."'" Matter of Gneiting, 897 P.2d 1306, 1308 (Wyo. 1995) (quoting Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Study, 866 P.2d 1288, 1291 (Wyo. 1994)).

 

[¶7]      Gonzales also 
raises a constitutional (equal protection/due process) issue which was not 
decided by the administrative hearing examiner. The Wyoming Administrative 
Procedure Act directs the reviewing court "[t]o the extent necessary to make a 
decision and when presented, the * * * court shall * * * interpret 
constitutional and statutory provisions * * *." Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-114(c) 
(1990).

 

IV. DISCUSSION

 

A. EXTRAHAZARDOUS EMPLOYMENT

 

[¶8]      The Wyoming 
Constitution requires worker's compensation coverage for employees who work in 
"extrahazardous employment."  Wyo. 
Const. art. 10, § 4. To apply this provision, "the legislature is given the 
authority to decide what employment shall be covered."  Baskin v. State ex rel. Worker's 
Compensation Div., 722 P.2d 151, 157 (Wyo. 1986).

 

[¶9]      The legislature 
specifically defined extrahazardous employment in Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-108 
(Cum.Supp. 1994). That statute lists classifications of industries where all 
employees are considered working in extrahazardous employment, regardless of 
their individual occupations, in subsection (a). It lists specific individual 
occupations or activities which are considered extrahazardous in subsection 
(c).

 

[¶10]   Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-108(h) lists 
industries which are excluded from worker's compensation coverage. In other 
words, the legislature has determined that certain industries do not constitute 
extrahazardous employment. Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-108(h)(v)(F) 
states:

 

(h) Notwithstanding subsection (c) of this section, 
the following industries are excluded from coverage under this act, unless an 
election of coverage is made * * *:

 

* 
* * * * *

 

(v) * * *

 

(F) Major group 65, real 
estate[.]

 

"Major group 65, real 
estate" is defined by the Standard Industrial Classification Manual to include 
"[e]stablishments primarily engaged in the operation of residential mobile home 
sites."

 

[¶11]   The administrative hearing examiner 
found that Grass Valley was primarily engaged in the operation of residential 
mobile home sites.  Gonzales does 
not challenge this finding. Rather, Gonzales argues that Grass Valley had other 
"phases" of its business which were not excluded from the statutory definition 
of extrahazardous employment.

 

[¶12]   Gonzales asserts that his duties 
made him a janitor, grounds keeper, maintenance worker, construction worker, and 
building services worker, in addition to leasing or operating mobile home sites. 
Each of these occupations may be seen as extrahazardous employment under Wyo. 
Stat. § 27-14-108(d). Gonzales claims, then, that these "phases" of his work 
were extrahazardous under Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-108(d) even though his employer's 
business was excluded from mandatory worker's compensation under Wyo. Stat. § 
27-14-108(h)(v)(F).

 

[¶13]   As a general rule, "if the employer 
does not engage in extrahazardous activities, then whether the individual 
employee's activities are hazardous in nature is not material * * *." Baskin, 
722 P.2d  at 154 (citing Randell v. Wyoming State Treasurer ex rel. Wyoming 
Worker's Compensation Div., 671 P.2d 303 (Wyo. 1983) and 1C Larsen, Law of 
Workmen's Compensation, § 55.41 at 9-235 (1982)).  The administrative hearing examiner 
applied this general rule to conclude that Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-108(c) applies 
only where the "employer's business is 
not specifically listed as covered under subsection (a) and not listed as exempt 
under subsection (h) * * *."

 

[¶14]   The administrative hearing examiner 
correctly interpreted and applied Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-108 to the facts of this 
case. Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-108(c) applies only where subsection (a) does not 
require all employees of an industry to be covered by worker's compensation, and 
where subsection (h) does not exempt all employees of an industry from coverage. 
Gonzales' interpretation is that Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-108(c) controls even in 
industries which fall under subsections (a) and (h). This approach would make 
subsections (a) and (h) meaningless and would eliminate the long-standing rule 
that the nature of the employer's business is the first factor considered in 
determining whether an occupation is extrahazardous.

 

[¶15]   Grass Valley, as the operator of a 
mobile home park, along with Gonzales and its other employees, are excluded from 
mandatory worker's compensation coverage under Wyo. Stat. § 
27-14-108(h)(v)(F).

 

B. EQUAL PROTECTION

 

[¶16]   Gonzales asserts he was denied 
equal protection or due process under the Wyoming Constitution1 if janitors or maintenance workers 
in some other industry are covered under worker's compensation, but he is not 
because he works for a mobile home park. In effect, Gonzales argues that the 
exemption from worker's compensation coverage for the mobile home park industry 
is an unconstitutional classification of persons.

 

[¶17]   "`One who assails the 
classification in such a law must carry the burden of showing that it does not 
rest upon any reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary.'" Baskin, 722 P.2d  
at 155 (quoting In re Trent's Claim, 68 Wyo. 146, 231 P.2d 180, 185 (1951), 
overruled sub nom. Bowers v. Wyoming State Treasurer ex rel. Workmen's 
Compensation Division, 593 P.2d 182 (Wyo. 1979)). "[S]tatutes are presumed to be 
constitutional, and one who denies the constitutionality of a statute must 
establish that unconstitutionality." Id.

 

[¶18]   Wyoming's legislature determined 
that some industries had such significant risk for employees that worker's 
compensation should be mandatory, and that the risk did not justify the 
additional cost for other industries. It is reasonable to consider that the 
mobile home park business has minimal risks to employees, and that the risks are 
"`exceptionally patent, simple, and familiar.'" Baskin, 722 P.2d  at 156 (quoting 
New York Cent. R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 37 S. Ct. 247, 61 L. Ed. 667 
(1917)). A state has a legitimate interest in and a rational basis for excluding 
an industry from worker's compensation coverage in such a situation. Baskin, 722 P.2d  at 156.

 

[¶19]   Gonzales failed to show that the 
statutory classification which exempts mobile home parks from mandatory worker's 
compensation coverage is arbitrary. We hold that this classification has a 
reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest, and is not a violation 
of due process.

 

V. CONCLUSION

 

[¶20]   The administrative hearing examiner 
correctly determined that Gonzales' occupation was not covered by worker's 
compensation. The classifications in Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-108(h) as applied to 
this case have a reasonable connection to legitimate state interests and do not 
deny Gonzales due process or equal protection. The administrative hearing 
examiner's decision is affirmed.

 

FOOTNOTES

  1Gonzales cites only Wyo. Const. art. 
1, §§ 3 and 7 in support of this argument. Those sections 
provide:

 

§ 3. 
Equal political rights. 

Since 
equality in the enjoyment of natural and civil rights is only made sure through 
political equality, the laws of this state affecting the political rights and 
privileges of its citizens shall be without distinction of race, color, sex, or 
any circumstance or condition whatsoever other than individual incompetency, or 
unworthiness duly ascertained by a court of competent 
jurisdiction.

 

§ 7. No 
absolute, arbitrary power. 

Absolute, 
arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere 
in a republic, not even in the largest majority.