Opinion ID: 1200139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: employee

Text: 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: Employee means any person engaged in any extrahazardous employment under any appointment, contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, and includes legally employed minors and aliens authorized to work by the United States department of justice, immigration and naturalization service. Employee does not include: [13 specific exclusions are listed, and unauthorized aliens are not included among the exclusions] (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 .... City of Cheyenne v. Huitt, 844 P.2d 1102, 1104 (Wyo. 1993). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(vii) enumerates aliens who are authorized to work as employees for workers' compensation purposes. This rule of construction results in the exclusion of the aliens not enumerated in the statute. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(vii) also enumerates thirteen work circumstances which do not qualify as an employee. That list does not include aliens who are not authorized to work by the United States department of justice, immigration and naturalization service. Felix argues that expressio unius est exclusio alterius requires that unauthorized aliens be included as employees under the statute because they are not in the list of excluded circumstances. Appellant's position ignores the principle that all parts of a statute be construed together, in pari materia. Read as a whole, § 27-14-102(a)(vii) excludes aliens not authorized to work from the definition of employee before it lists other exclusions. A third approach to statutory construction is to consider legislative history. State v. Stovall, 648 P.2d 543, 546 (Wyo. 1982); Padilla v. State, 601 P.2d 189, 192-93 (Wyo.1979). Before 1996, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(vii) stated that employee includes aliens, without reference to authorization to work. Effective January 1, 1996, the legislature added the phrase authorized to work by the United States department of justice, immigration and naturalization service. See 1995 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 121, §§ 2, 4. Upon adoption of an amendment of a statute it will be presumed that a change in existing law was intended and the courts will endeavor to give some effect to the amendment. Stolldorf v. Stolldorf, 384 P.2d 969, 972 (Wyo.1963). The legislature logically intended to add a requirement that aliens be authorized to work in the United States to be considered employees for coverage under Wyoming's workers' compensation laws.