Opinion
CASE NO. 1140 CRD-7-90-11
MARCH 23, 1992
The claimant was represented by Brendan T. Canty, Esq., Reid, Cafero, and Corsello.
The respondents were represented by Scott W. Williams, Esq., Maher and Williams.
This Petition for Review from the November 20, 1990 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard October 25, 1991 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Donald Doyle and Jesse Frankl.
OPINION
Because the Seventh District denied his claim on the basis of lack of jurisdiction claimant has appealed. The only issue is whether the commissioner in fact lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Claimant was employed by the respondent employer, a New York corporation having its principal office in Mamaroneck, NY 10543 and registered as a foreign corporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Connecticut. The respondent employer was engaged in the business of home remodeling and construction in Westchester County, New York and lower Fairfield County, Connecticut. On October 30, 1989 the claimant suffered an injury to his back, the compensability of which was accepted under the Workers' Compensation laws of the State of New York and benefits paid. Claimant had secured employment with the respondent employer as a result of responding to a Connecticut placed newspaper ad and an interview held at the respondent employer's home office in Mamaroneck, NY. At that time the employee was of the impression that his work assignment would be that of a working foreman in Connecticut. The general manager of the employer, Jerome Zaccharia, Jr., testified while the employer intended to accommodate the claimant's Connecticut job site preference, the work was not limited to Connecticut.
The claimant was hired and started work November 1, 1988. After a few weeks of training in New York, he was assigned various projects located in Connecticut. On about October 12, 1989, claimant commenced the first of two assignments located in New York. Claimant's assignment to the New York projects was the result of a slow-down in Connecticut work projects and was an alternative to being laid off. The commissioner additionally found that the direction and supervision of each job to which the claimant was assigned originated from the employer's Mamaroneck, New York office.
Based on those and certain other facts, the commissioner concluded that he lacked jurisdiction. Cleveland v. U.S. Printing Ink, Inc., 218 Conn. 181 (1991) held that Connecticut workers' compensation jurisdiction applied where Connecticut is, "the place of injury, or the place of hiring, or the place of employment relation . . . ." (emphasis theirs). Id. at 192. In the instant case the trial commissioner found and concluded that Connecticut was not the place of injury (see paragraph 10) nor was Connecticut the place of hire (see paragraphs 1c, 6 and 8). He then concluded that the claimant had failed to demonstrate sufficient contacts with the State of Connecticut at the time of injury so as to bring the claim within the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act." (See Paragraph 16E).
The rationale employed by the Commissioner was that employed by the Appellate Court in Cleveland v. US Printing Ink, Inc., 21 Conn. App. 610 (1990). But when Cleveland was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, that court adopted the three prong test noted above. The commissioner's November 20, 1990 Finding and Dismissal occurred after the Appellate Court's ruling in Cleveland and some four months prior to the Supreme Court ruling. As the Supreme Court's conflicts of law test differed from the Appellate Court's analysis, we must remand this matter to the trial commissioner in order that he may apply the Supreme Court's ruling in Cleveland to the facts found and determine if Connecticut was the place of the employment relation.
The matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Commissioners Donald Doyle and Jesse Frankl concur.