WATT, J.

¶ 1 We retained this cause to address two issues. The first is whether a political-subdivision employer may be required to provide workers' compensation benefits to an off-duty employee injured while providing services to a private entity. Second, we are asked whether, under the facts presented, the claimant's salaries from his full-time employment as a deputy sheriff and his part-time job as a security officer may be combined when determining the amount of benefits to which the employee is entitled.1

¶ 2 The answer to the first question is controlled by the plain, clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, mandatory, and unequivocal language of 85 O.S.2011 § 313(G)2 providing that private employers, hiring off-duty municipal employees, alone shall be responsible for the payment of workers' compensation benefits arising from incidents occurring during the hours of actual employment by the private employer. The second issue requires that we determine whether the claimant's private sector employment was the same or similar to that of his duties as a deputy sheriff.3 Here, the employee drove an official cruiser to the job site, was dressed in uniform, and was carrying his badge and personal sidearm while engaged in transporting, on foot, his employer's money to a local night depository. Waldenville was shot in the head and so severely injured that he could not give chase. Under these unique facts, we determine that the employee's two salaries should be combined for the purpose of determining benefits. The clear weight of the evidence and the overwhelming majority of extant jurisprudence support the conclusion that, while acting as a security guard for the employer, the claimant was engaged in an employment substantially the same or similar to his duties as a Deputy Sheriff.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On May 21, 2011d Waldenville was delivering a night deposit to UMB Bank for Cattlemen's when he was ambushed, shot in the head, and robbed of two (2) money bags. At the time, Waldenville was employed full-time as a Major with the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Department and was working part-time for the employer as a security guard hired and paid by Cattlemen's. His regular duties as a Deputy were with the Administrative Bureau as Chief Financial Officer for the Sheriff's Office. Waldenville was also over the training division. Previously, he had been part of the SWAT team tactical unit. On the evening of the injury, the employee had permission from the Sheriff's Office to act as a security guard for Cattlemen's and other private employers.

¶ 4 When shot, Waldenville was being paid for his services by Cattlemen's and was conducting business as the employer's part-time security guard. Nevertheless, with the permission of Oklahoma County, he was wearing his Deputy Sheriff's uniform, carrying his personal sidearm, and was utilizing a County police vehicle as transportation. Waldenville's regular duties for Cattlemen's involved providing security, i.e. protecting vehicles from vandalism in the parking lot, ensuring that transients did not interfere with customers, escorting employees from the place of business to their cars, and making the nightly deposit at the stockyard's bank. On occasion, during the hours of his employment with the employer, Waldenville issued tickets in the area for speeding and considered himself to be an active, on-duty Deputy Sheriff with the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Department at all times.

¶ 5 On June 7, 2011, a form 3 was filed in the Workers' Compensation Court alleging Waldenville suffered an accidental personal injury arising out of his employment with Cattlemen's. When Cattlemen's denied that Waldenville was their employee, the trial court allowed the joinder of the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Department. Initially, Cattlemen's denied that they had workers' compensation insurance coverage on the employee and asserted that he was an independent contractor. On February 13, 2013, the day of trial, Cattlemen's formally acknowledged that premiums were paid to the insurance carrier based on Waldenville's salary.4 A week later, the trial court issued an order finding that the claimant was entitled to compensation, dismissing Oklahoma County, and combining the claimant's wages from his two employments for the purpose of determining benefits.

¶ 6 Cattlemen's filed its petition for review on March 11, 2013. The motion to retain was granted on June 26th. The briefing cycle was completed with the filing of the petitioner's reply. The record was provided to this Court on July 25, 2013.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7 To the extent that we are called upon to construe the statutory language at issue herein, we are presented with a pure question of law subject to our de novo review without deference to the workers' compensation court.5 The evidentiary standard of "against the clear weight of the evidence," having been in effect on the date of injury, is applicable here.6

¶ 9 Cattlemen's contends that it is not liable for payment of workers' compensation to Waldenville because the employee was not an "off-duty" municipal employee for whom it would be liable to pay workers' compensation benefits pursuant to 85 O.S.2011 § 313(G).7 Rather, the employer insists, the employee was operating in his capacity as a police officer when he was shot while safeguarding money for the night deposit. Oklahoma County argues that the employee was acting purely in his capacity as a part-time security guard for Cattlemen's and was not performing the duties of a Deputy for the Sheriff's Department. Waldenville asserts that the trial court was correct in ruling that Cattlemen's was solely liable for compensation for the injuries he sustained. We agree with both Oklahoma County's and the employee's positions.

¶ 10 The employer relies primarily on two decisions from sister jurisdictions for support of its arguments. The first, City of Hialeah v. Weber, 491 So.2d 1204 (D.C.Fla.1986), involved a situation where a police officer was seeking workers' compensation benefits from the City for injuries incurred by an off-duty policeman who was providing his part-time employer with security services. The Weber Court determined that the City was responsible for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained by the off-duty policeman. It did so on grounds that the actions the officer undertook, i.e. attempting to arrest individuals committing acts of vandalism outside the employer's private club, were such that he was performing his job as a police officer for the City when injured.

¶ 11 The second case upon which Cattlemen's relies is State v. Wilen, 4 Neb.App. 132, 539 N.W.2d 650 (1995). Wilen did not involve a claim for workers' compensation. Rather, the issue presented was whether an off-duty police officer, being paid by a private entity, was acting in her official capacity so as to support criminal charges against an individual driving his automobile toward the officer at a high rate of speed. The Nebraska Court determined that the officer was conducting herself in her official capacity and that the charge would stand.

¶ 12 Neither Weber nor Wilen support Cattlemen's contentions. Wilen did not involve any issue related to the payment of workers' compensation benefits, nor was the Nebraska Court called upon to distinguish between the status of the employee as either "on" or "off" duty. Rather, it recognized that the duties the officer performed for the restaurant were supplemental to her primary duties of law enforcement on behalf of the general public.

¶ 13 Weber is of little help. Although its facts are similar enough to appear persuasive on the employment issue, the cause does not indicate that Florida has a statute resembling 85 O.S. § 313(G) providing in pertinent part:

¶ 14 The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and, if possible, give effect to the intention and purpose of the Legislature as expressed by the statutory language.8 Intent is ascertained from the whole act in light of its general purpose and objective9 considering relevant provisions together to give full force and effect to each.10 The Court presumes that the Legislature expressed its intent and that it intended what it expressed.11 Statutes are interpreted to attain that purpose and end12 championing the broad public policy purposes underlying them.13 Only where the legislative intent cannot be ascertained from the statutory language, i.e. in cases of ambiguity or conflict, are rules of statutory construction employed.14 If the language is plain and clearly expresses the legislative will, further inquiry is unnecessary.15

¶ 15 Title 85 O.S.2011 § 313(G) is the Legislature's pronouncement on Oklahoma's public policy16 regarding a private employer's hiring of a county employee during off-duty hours from employment with the governmental employer. Utilizing mandatory language,17 it provides that private employers hiring off-duty county employees shall "alone"18 be responsible for any workers' compensation benefits payable for injuries occurring during the hours of actual employment with the private entity.

¶ 16 The plain, clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, and unequivocal language of 85 O.S. 2011 § 313(G),19 providing that private employers, hiring off-duty county employees, alone shall be responsible for the payment of workers' compensation benefits arising from incidents occurring during the hours of actual employment by the private employer governs this cause. We determine that, pursuant to the Legislature's pronouncement, Cattlemen's alone is responsible for payment of the off-duty municipal employee's workers' compensation benefits.

¶ 18 Having determined that Cattlemen's is responsible for payment of the claimant's compensation, we now address how the award should be computed. While there is a difference of opinion on whether the claimant's employment as a Major with the Sheriff's Department and as a security guard are combinable for a determination of compensation, the employer and employee agree that 85 O.S.2001 § 2120 is the applicable statutory provision. The discord between Cattlemen's and Waldenville comes with their arguments of whether the two employments can be considered "the same or similar" within the meaning of the statute and the salaries combined for the purpose of determining the correct rate of compensation.

¶ 19 Title 85 O.S.2001 § 21 provides in pertinent part:

¶ 20 This statute provides the exclusive method for calculating a claimant's compensation rate. It is to be applied in the order designated by the Legislature.21 Subsection 3 of § 21 is utilized when neither subsections 1 nor 2 can be fairly and reasonably applied.22 Subsection 3 has been utilized when, as here, part-time or irregular employment is involved.23 In such situations, utilization of subsection 3 allows for consideration of the employee's annual earning capacity. This calculation is fair to the employer, its insurer, and the claimant.24 Subsection 3 is meant to provide a broad method by which the "earning capacity" of an injured employee may be determined.25

¶ 21 Considering a statute almost identical to the one at issue here in Geneva-Pearl Oil & Gas Co. v. Hickman, 1931 OK 74, 147 Okla. 283, 296 P. 954, the Court determined that the Legislature intended to make the average weekly wages of an injured employee at the time of the injury the basis upon which compensation should be paid. It is the "occupation" of the employee which is the defining factor for determining the benefits to be awarded under Hickman. In that case, the employee was acting as a pumper in both of his positions and the salaries from both employers were held combinable for purposes of the award of benefits. In Fox Bldg. Supply Co. v. Bond, 1979 OK 175, 604 P.2d 859, the Court considered Hickman along with other Oklahoma cases concerning the combination of wages for purposes of calculating workers' compensation benefits and determined that employments must be identical or substantially similar before a claimant will be permitted to combine the wages paid by two employers for purposes of determining a claimant's award.

¶ 22 The employee's regular duties while engaged in his part-time employment with Cattlemen's required him to patrol the employer's parking lot to prevent vehicles from being vandalized and to ensure the safety of patrons from transients as they entered and exited the premises. At times, Waldenville was called upon to escort servers to and from their cars when leaving with their tip monies at the end of the evening. He was also expected to make the nightly deposit. On occasion, while on duty as a security guard, the claimant issued tickets or warnings to protect the safety of customers and citizens parking across the street from the restaurant. At all times, Waldenville considered himself to be an active, on-duty Deputy Sheriff with the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Department.26

¶ 23 Waldenville was attacked while attempting to deliver his employer's property to the night depository. It cannot be denied that the protection of both public and private property falls within the ambit of a police officer's duties.27 Undoubtedly, the claimant looked like a police officer when he was shot. He was in uniform, wearing a badge, and carrying his service weapon. The employee arrived at Cattlemen's to start his shift in a clearly marked police vehicle equipped with a police radio and mobile data computer for the running of information. Title 11 O.S.2011 § 34-101(A) provides in mandatory language that a "municipal police officer shall at all times have the power to make or order an arrest for any offense against the laws of this state or the ordinances of the municipality."28 There is little doubt that, given the opportunity, Waldenville would have exercised his statutory authority to make an arrest of his assailants had he not been blind-sided by the attack and rendered immobile. In a situation not involving a workers' compensation claim but rather the Governmental Tort Claims Act, this Court held that an off-duty police officer executing an arrest was entitled to indemnification for legal costs from the employing municipality as he was "acting within the scope of his employment" when the arrest was made.29

¶ 24 The facts of this case are largely undisputed. The overwhelming majority of sister courts faced with similar situations have determined that police officers, acting as security guards, were engaged in the performance of the job of a police officer.30 Where the workers' compensation court's determination that the employments are the same or similar can be reasonably applied and the clear weight of the evidence supports the same, we will not disturb such findings.31 The clear weight of the evidence and the majority of extant jurisprudence support the conclusion that, while acting as a security guard for the employer, the claimant was engaged in an employment substantially the same or similar to his duties as a Deputy Sheriff. Under the unique facts presented, we determine that the employee's two salaries should be combined for the purpose of determining benefits.

CONCLUSION

¶ 25 The language of 85 O.S.2011 § 313(G)32 is unambiguous and not subject to interpretation. The Legislature has spoken. The plain, clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, mandatory, and unequivocal language of the statute mandates that private employers, hiring off-duty county employees, shall be responsible for the payment of workers' compensation benefits arising from incidents occurring during the hours of actual employment.

¶ 26 We stress that Oklahoma police officers have an ever present, statutorily-imposed responsibility to stop crime. However, this opinion should not be read to conclude that an officer, employed as private security, may always be considered to be acting in his official capacity for all purposes. Nevertheless, here, the claimant looked like a police officer and had all an officer's trappings, including a badge, a gun, and a fully equipped cruiser. More importantly, he was engaged in the protection of property as he walked to make Cattlemen's night deposit. Finally, had Waldenville not been ambushed and put out of commission, there is little doubt that his training as a Deputy Sheriff would have surfaced and he would have done his best to stop the robbers and to effect their arrest. Under these unique facts, the duties the claimant was performing were identical or sufficiently similar to his full time profession as a police officer to warrant the combination of his wages for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation to which he is entitled.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT'S ORDER IS SUSTAINED.

COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, TAYLOR, COMBS, GURICH, JJ., concur.

KAUGER, J., not Participating.