In Croft v. Pan Alaska Trucking, 820 P.2d 1064 (Alaska 1991) a worker's compensation case, the supreme court analyzed the statutory construction principle. We agree with Croft that AS 23.30.155(j) provides the exclusive remedy for an employer to recover overcompensation. . . . In reaching this conclusion, we employ the principle of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius. "The maxim establishes the inference that, where certain things are designated in a statute, 'all omissions should be understood as exclusions.' The maxim is one of longstanding application, and it is essentially an application of common sense and logic." . . . Alaska Statute 23.30.155(j) specifically enumerates a remedy for overcompensation. In the absence of any indication in the Act to the contrary, the inference we draw is that the inclusion of this specified remedy was intended to exclude other remedies for overcompensation. The case for application of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is particularly compelling, where, as here, the scheme is purely statutory and without a basis in the common law. (Id. at 1066.)