Opinion
CASE NO. 431 CRD-4-85
FEBRUARY 26, 1987
Claimant was represented by Gerard S. Spiegel, Esq.
Respondent-Employer was represented by James C. Moyer, Esq.
Respondent Second Injury Fund was represented by Robert Murphy, Esq.
This Petition for Review from the November 15, 1985 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Fourth District was heard January 30, 1987 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and A. Thomas White, Jr.
OPINION
This respondent was a contractor whose business was the construction of houses. He engaged the claimant to perform carpentry services. On December 9, 1983 the claimant injured his back when he fell from a roof while working at a construction site in Shelton. The issue before the Fourth District Commissioner was whether claimant was an employee or an independent contractor.
Claimant, a seventeen year old minor when hired, had been working with the respondent for nine months before the injury. He was being paid weekly at the rate of $7.00 an hour. Each day during that nine months the claimant would report to different job sites as directed by the respondent. On these jobs claimant used some tools owned by him, but the respondent supplied other necessary items such as ladders, and scaffolding, nails, shingles and lumber. Besides purely carpentry tasks, claimant would sometimes do foundation work and pour concrete as requested by the respondent or by Steve Droulet, a more experienced person on the various job sites. If the respondent was not satisfied with certain work done by claimant, he would direct that it be ripped out and done over. When the claimant redid the work he would still be paid $7.00 an hour for all the time spent.
On the basis of these facts found the Commissioner ruled claimant was an employee and his injury was one arising out of the employment. The determination of whether a party is an independent contractor or an employee turns on the degree of control exercised by the alleged employer. Kaliszewski v. Weathermaster Alsco Corp., 148 Conn. 624, 627 (1961). Further, in Francis v. Franklin Cafeteria, Inc., 123 Conn. 320, 326 (1937) the Connecticut Supreme Court held:
"it was for the Commissioner, considering these and all of the other relevant facts, to determine whether or not the defendant had the right of general control and whether or not the decedent was an employee. Since his conclusion upon the subordinate facts found that the decedent was an independent contractor and not an employee, was reasonable, logical and in accord with the legal principles pertaining to the situation, it must stand."
Applying this same standard to the instant matter, we find that the determination of Claimant's employment status was a factual determination made by the Commissioner. As the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner was not the result of "an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them" the finding must stand. Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 118 (1979).
We, therefore, affirm the Commissioner's Finding and Award dated November 15, 1985.
Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and A. Thomas White, Jr. concur.