The claimant petitioned the district court toreview that decision, and the district court affirmed the decision. The claimant subsequently perfected his appeal to this Court. The claimant does not dispute the hearing examiner's findings of fact. We are, therefore, presented with a question of law with regard to the proper interpretation and application of the statute. We do not defer to an agency's conclusions of law.
Coverage remains effective until withdrawn by written notice to the division.
The hearing examiner concluded that Newton Drilling's failure to execute the affidavit did not result in a withdrawal of the claimant's corporate officer coverage because such failure did not constitute a written notice to the Workers' Compensation Division. We endeavor to interpret statutes in accordance with the Legislature's intent. We construe the statute as a whole, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe together all parts of the statute in pari materia . When the Court determines, as a matter of law, that a statute is clear and unambiguous, it must give effect to the plain language of the statute and should not resort to the rules of statutory construction. If, on the other hand, the Court determines that a statute is ambiguous, it may use extrinsic aids of statutory interpretation to help it determine the Legislature's intent.