Opinion
No. 73-226
Decided November 27, 1973. Rehearing denied December 18, 1973. Certiorari denied February 11, 1974.
From an award of workmen's compensation benefits to the manager of a racehorse breeding and training operation, the employer sought review.
Affirmed
1. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — Employers — Require Services — Four or More Employees — Not Filled — All Times — Individuals — Not Work Six Months — Employer Not Exempt — Racehorse Operation — Covered. By its amendment of the Workers' Compensation Act, the legislature did not intend to exempt from coverage employers who consistently required the services of four or more employees, and the fact that such an employer is unable to fill all of his positions at all times, or that the individuals who fill the positions work for less than six months, does not exempt such an employer from the operation of the statute; thus, since racehorse breeding and training operation attempted to employ a manager, a trainer, and two grooms at all times, it was covered by the statute.
Review of Order from the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado
Dosh, DeMoulin, Anderson Campbell, William P. DeMoulin, George J. McMahill, for petitioner.
MacDonald Fattor, James D. Fattor, for respondent, Robert Edwards.
John P. Moore, Attorney General, John E. Bush, Deputy Attorney General, Peter L. Dye, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents director of Division of Labor, Department of Labor and Employment of the State of Colorado, and the Industrial Commission of Colorado.
John Norton, doing business as J.N.S. Farms, (employer) petitions for a review of an order of the Industrial Commission awarding Robert Edwards (claimant) compensation for an injury sustained in the course of his employment. We affirm.
The basic facts are not in dispute. Claimant was hired in March 1972 as manager of J.N.S. Farms, a racehorse breeding and training operation. The injury occurred in April 1972 when claimant attempted to jump to safety from a horse which had bolted. After a hearing, the referee found that claimant had suffered total temporary disability and was entitled to maximum compensation benefits.
The statute in effect at the time of the accident stated in pertinent part:
"This chapter is not intended to apply to . . . employers of farm and ranch labor employed for six months or less during any twelve-month period, or fewer than four such farm and ranch employees employed for more than six months during any twelve-month period . . . ." 1971 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 81-2-6(4).
The employer contends that J.N.S. Farms is a farm or ranch within the meaning of the statute and also that, during the twelve-month period immediately preceding the accident, Norton did not employ four or more persons who worked for six months or longer. The employment records submitted by Norton show that, in addition to claimant, J.N.S. Farms employed a permanent full-time horse trainer and an average of two grooms or exercise boys. The grooms were transients who worked for a period ranging from a few days to several months. The employer argues that in interpreting the statute, the Commission should look at the employment record of each of the transient employees to determine whether he was on the payroll for more than six months. Under the employer's interpretation of the statute, he would be exempt from coverage because the records indicate that the same four persons were not employed for more than six months during the last twelve months.
The Commission concluded that (1) J.N.S. Farms is not a farm or ranch for purposes of Workers' Compensation; and that (2) even if it were a farm or ranch, it still falls within the statute due to the number of employees. The Commission contends that although the individuals employed as grooms rarely stayed six months or longer, Norton attempted to employ a manager, a trainer and two grooms at all times and therefore is covered by the statute.
[1] Assuming, without deciding, that J.N.S. Farms is a farm or ranch for purposes of Workers' Compensation, we hold that, within the meaning of the statute, Norton employed four or more employees "for more than six months during any twelve-month period." Prior to the 1971 amendment, the Workers' Compensation Act excluded all farm and ranch laborers from coverage. The amendment extended the scope of the Act to include farms and ranches which, for more than six months during the year, require four or more laborers. We believe the legislature did not intend to exempt employers, such as Norton, who consistently require the services of four or more employees. The fact that the employer is unable to fill all of his positions at all times, or that the individuals who fill the positions work for less than six months, does not exempt the employer from the operation of the statute.
Since J.N.S. Farms employed the requisite number of employees to be covered by the Act either as a commercial or as a farm or ranch employer, we need not decide the question of whether the employer's operation should be classed as a farm or ranch as those words are used in the Act.
Order affirmed.
CHIEF JUDGE SILVERSTEIN and JUDGE RULAND concur.