## Facts

- Martin L. Hays was a partner in Hays Transportation Co., a partnership engaged in scrap-metal and trucking work classified as extrahazardous.
- On October 25, 1986, Hays fell while cutting scrap metal with a blowtorch, suffered fatal head injuries, and died within hours.
- Hays’s widow filed an injury report and an application for workers’ compensation death benefits for herself and their two minor children.
- A district court initially approved the application and awarded death benefits plus hospital and funeral costs.
- The Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division timely objected, asserting the partnership lacked a current workers’ compensation account and that Hays, as a partner, was not an “employee” under Wyo. Stat. § 27-12-102(a)(viii) (1977).
- After proceedings on the objection, the district court denied benefits on the ground that Hays was not an “employee,” and it denied the claimant’s post-judgment motions under W.R.C.P. 59 and 60.

## Issues

1. Whether a partner in an extrahazardous business is an “employee” under Wyo. Stat. § 27-12-102(a)(viii) and therefore eligible for workers’ compensation coverage when injured while performing hazardous work.
2. Whether construing the Act to deny coverage to partners, while allowing certain corporate officers coverage upon statutory compliance, violates equal protection under the federal and Wyoming constitutions.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial and relief from judgment under W.R.C.P. 59 and 60.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying the claimant’s motions for a new trial and relief from judgment.
- The court held that, under the statutory definition then in effect, a partner was not an “employee” eligible for workers’ compensation benefits.
- The court held that the different statutory treatment of partners and certain corporate officers did not violate equal protection under rational basis review.
- Because the underlying statutory and constitutional rulings were correct, denial of post-judgment relief was not an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wyo. Stat. § 27-12-102(a)(viii) (1977), a partnership partner is not an “employee” of the partnership for workers’ compensation purposes, even if performing manual labor within the hazards of the business.
- When a statute expressly extends workers’ compensation coverage to specified corporate officers subject to conditions, the absence of comparable language for partners supports the conclusion that partners are excluded.
- A statutory classification distinguishing corporate officers from partners in workers’ compensation eligibility is reviewed under rational basis and is constitutional if reasonably related to legitimate legislative and administrative purposes.
- Post-judgment relief under W.R.C.P. 59 and 60 is properly denied where the movant primarily reasserts legal arguments already resolved and shows no basis requiring alteration of the judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that a partner in a partnership engaged in extrahazardous work was not an “employee” under the controlling workers’ compensation statute and that excluding partners from coverage, while permitting certain corporate officers to qualify through statutory filings, satisfied equal protection; the denial of post-judgment relief was therefore affirmed.


Hays v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Comp. Div., 768 P.2d 11 (Wyo. 1989)