Court Opinion

ID: 9617536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:57:09.018217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:14.071338
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
specially concurring.
I am in complete accord with all that is set forth in the opinion of the court in this case. It is my opinion, however, that Wyo.Stat. § 27-14-102(a)(vii) (June 1991 Repl.) provides additional authority for refutation of the Makinen argument that the Suchors should not be considered co-employees in this instance.
The complete language from Wyo.Stat. § 27-14-102(a)(vii), out of which the Maki-nens take one phrase, reads:
“Employee” also includes the officers of a corporation, the business of which is classed as extrahazardous, if the officers are actually subject to the hazards of the business in the regular performance of their duties, and the employer elects to come under the provisions of this act by notifying the division by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of the coverage. Coverage remains effective until withdrawn by written notice to the division.
When this is read in context, rather than out of context, it is clear the legislature was dealing only with coverage of corporate officers under the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act. The referenced language has no significance in relation to liability of co-employees. As the majority opinion notes, this implication is apparent from a careful reading of Barnette v. Doyle, 622 P.2d 1349 (Wyo.1981).