12-0090. PETER M.JEWELL, Employee, Applicant, v. TREVOR HILL, Uninsured Employer, and WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS GUARANTY FUND, Defendants.
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2012.
Workers' Compensation Board
12-0090.
PETER M.JEWELL, Employee, Applicant, v. TREVOR HILL, Uninsured Employer, and WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS GUARANTY FUND, Defendants
ALASKA WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARDP.O. Box
115512 Juneau, Alaska 99811-5512
PETER M.JEWELL, Employee, Applicant, V. TREVOR HILL, Uninsured Employer, and
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS GUARANTY FUND, Defendants.AWCB Case No. 200720851AWCB
Decision No. 12-0090Filed with AWCB Juneau,
Alaska On May 23, 2012FINAL
DECISION AND ORDERPeter Jewell's (Applicant) September 17, 2009, workers'
compensation claim (WCC) was heard on April 10, 2012, in Juneau, Alaska.
Applicant appeared, represented himself, and testified. Trevor Hill (Hill), who
was uninsured for work-related injuries at the time of this injury, appeared
telephonically, represented himself and testified. Administrator Velma Thomas
appeared, testified, and represented the Alaska Worker's Compensation Benefits
Guaranty Fund (the Fund). Adjuster Joanne Pride appeared telephonically,
testified, and also represented the Fund. The record remained open until May
10, 2012, to allow Applicant to file additional medical records. Applicant did
not file any additional medical records. The record closed on May 22, 2012,
after further deliberation.
ISSUES
Applicant contends he was Hill's employee when injured on
September 24, 2007. Hill contends Applicant was not his employee at the time of
any injury. Rather, he contends Applicant was a co-worker. The Fund has not
taken a position whether Applicant was Hill's employee on the day he was
injured.
1)On September 24, 2007, was Applicant an "employee" employed
by Hill, an "employer," under AS 23.30.395(19)-(20), and the "relative nature
of the work test," as codified in 8 AAC 45.890?
Applicant seeks past and ongoing medical treatment and related
transportation costs for his left lower extremity, which he contends he injured
while working for Hill. Other than disputing Applicant was Hill's employee,
Hill did not submit any evidence contending Applicant's need for medical care
and related transportation costs were unrelated to his September 24, 2007
injury. The Fund has not taken a position on this issue.
2)Is Applicant entitled to past and continuing left lower
extremity medical benefits and related transportation costs?
Applicant also seeks temporary total disability (TTD). Other
than disputing Applicant was Hill's employee, Hill did not submit any evidence
contending Applicant's disability was unrelated to his September 24, 2007
injury. The Fund has not taken a position on this issue.
3)Is Applicant entitled to an award of TTD from September 24,
2007, to April 1, 2008?
Applicant seeks permanent partial impairment benefits (PPI).
Other than disputing Applicant was Hill's employee, Hill did not submit any
evidence contending Applicant's permanent impairment was unrelated to his
September 24, 2007 injury. The Fund has not taken a position on this
issue.
4)Is Applicant entitled to an award of PPI?
Applicant seeks interest on all benefits. Other than disputing
Applicant was Hill's employee, Hill did not submit any evidence contending
Applicant was not entitled to interest. The Fund has not taken a position on
this issue.
5)Is Applicant entitled to interest?
FINDINGS OF FACT
A review of the relevant record establishes the following facts
and factual conclusions by a preponderance of the evidence:
1) In August 2007, Applicant began working for Hill.
(Applicant; Hill).
2) On September 24, 2007, Applicant was injured while working
for Hill on a project to build an airplane hangar (Hangar Project) for Alaska
State Trooper Andy Savland in Hoonah, Alaska.
Applicant was injured when slipped on the roof of the airplane
hangar and fell to the ground.
(Report of Injury, July 13, 2009; Applicant; Hill).
3) Applicant never had contact with Andy Savland regarding
Applicant's work on the Hangar Project, or discussed with him how much
Applicant would be paid or Applicant's work schedule.
Applicant directed all communication regarding the Hangar
Project to Hill. For example, Hill negotiated Applicant's pay with Savland and
informed Applicant how much Applicant would be paid for his work. Hill contends
Savland directed the work, with Hill merely relaying Savland's directions to
Applicant, but also contends Applicant and Hill jointly directed the work,
conferring each morning on how to accomplish the assigned work. Hill's
contradictory statements weaken his credibility and are given little weight.
(Applicant; Hill; Record).
4) Hill approached Applicant to work on the Hangar Project
based on Applicant's professional reputation. Hill explained to Applicant Hill
was working on the Hangar Project and hired Applicant to help construct the
hangar. At the time of Applicant's injury, Hill and Applicant were both
carpenters. Hill and Applicant performed the same type of work on the Hangar
Project. Their work included all duties required to complete construction of
the Hangar Project, such as building or installing concrete forms, beams,
trusses, siding and roofing. Performing construction services is an integral
part of owning and operating a construction business. After
Applicant was injured, Hill performed the services Applicant
would have performed. (Applicant; Hill).
5) Approximately three weeks into the Hangar Project, Hill
hired Applicant to help Hill complete a kitchen remodel project Hill currently
was working on for Jim Voeler. The Voeler project involved putting stainless
laminate on a refrigerator and trim on the floor. (Applicant).
6) Applicant was one of two workers hired by Hill to complete
the Hangar Project. The other worker was Casey Yakovich, who worked as a
groundskeeper/expediter. Yakovich's duties included fetching items needed for
the job site and making sure the ground was clear of debris.
(Applicant).
7) Hill paid Applicant $18.00 per hour for the first week and
$22.00 per hour for services rendered after the first week. (Applicant).
8) Hill kept track of Applicant's hours and paid Applicant
weekly by check from Hill's personal checking account. Hill also paid Casey
Yakovich for his work on the project by personal check from Hill's personal
checking account. (Applicant; Hill).
9) Applicant received five checks before he was injured,
ranging from $800 to $1,000 each. (Applicant).
10) Applicant's work for Hill involved relatively little skill
or experience. Applicant did not have any formal building or carpentry training
and learned the skill from his on-the-job experience.
Applicant's work for Hill required no special education,
training, or particular experience. (Applicant).
11) Applicant has never owned or operated his own business.
Applicant did not have a business license or a workers' compensation policy on
himself. (Applicant).
12) Hill told Applicant there would be additional work for
Applicant after the Hangar Project, arising from additional construction
projects on which Hill had agreed to work, including building projects for
Grant Coutlee and Ray Skaflestad. Applicant would have continued working for
Hill on additional projects on which Hill had planned to work, but for his
injury. (Applicant).
13) Applicant's job just prior to working for Hill was working
for Trucano Construction building a city float. Applicant's wage for Trucano
Construction was $31.90 an hour.
14) On September 24, 2007, Applicant was medevacked to Bartlett
Regional Hospital. (Guardian Flight, Inc. Invoice, December 8, 2010; Bartlett
Regional Hospital Emergency Department Note, September 24, 2007; Bartlett
Regional Hospital Transfer Summary, September 24, 2007).
15)On September 24, 2007, hospital staff evaluated Applicant
and assessed an open left tib-fib fracture and a left anterior chest wall
contusion. (Bartlett Regional Hospital Emergency Department Note, September 24,
2007; Bartlett Regional Hospital Transfer Summary, September 24, 2007).
16) On September 24, 2007, Theresa Shanley, M.D., interpreted
x-rays of Applicant's chest, pelvis, cervical spine and left ankle. The x-rays
showed a comminuted fracture of the distal tibia and fibula with lateral
angulation and apex of the fracture approximately 4 cm proximal to the
tibiotalar joint with slight deformity of the joint surface. (Radiologist
Report, Dr. Shanley, September 24, 2007).
17) On September 24, 2007, Bartlett medevacked Applicant to
Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage for further treatment. (Bartlett
Regional Hospital Authorization for Transfer, September 24, 2007; Alaska Native
Medical Center Discharge Summary, September 28, 2007).
18) On September 25, 2007, Mark Tuttle, M.D., diagnosed a
severely comminuted intra-articular distal tibia fracture, and performed
irrigation, drainage and open reduction internal fixation of Applicant's left
tibia-fibula fracture. Dr. Tuttle stated Applicant would need to be non weight
bearing on his left lower extremity for three months. (Alaska Native Medical
Center Discharge Summary, September 28, 2007; Operative Report, Dr. Tuttle,
September 26, 2007).
19) On December 6, 2007, Mark Peterson, M.D., treated Applicant
for tibiofibular surgery follow up. Applicant reported no major complaints
other than a little bit of swelling, but not a lot of pain. Applicant was using
a CamWalker boot and crutches. (Chart Note, Dr. Peterson, December 6,
2007).
20) On January 14, 2008, Applicant reported a little swelling
in the foot and occasional slight pain over the lateral medial malleolus...
To continue reading
Request your trial