3968 CRB-03-99-01 (2000). Kearse v. Labor Force of America et al.

• Case Date: February 01, 2000
• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Worker Compensation 2000. 3968 CRB-03-99-01 (2000). Kearse v. Labor Force of America et al CASE NO. 3968 CRB-03-99-01COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION February 1, 2000SAMUEL KEARSE CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. LABOR FORCE OF AMERICA EMPLOYER and UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS and TAIT MOVING COMPANY EMPLOYER RESPONDENT-APPELLEE and SECOND INJURY FUND RESPONDENT-APPELLEEAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Amy E. Johnson, Esq., Law Office of W. Martyn Philpot, Jr., 52 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 06510. The respondents Labor Force of America and Utica Mutual Insurance were represented by John Cassone, Esq., Avery and Crone, 25 Third Street, Stamford, CT 06905. The respondent Tait Moving Company was represented by Thomas C. Pellegrino, Esq., Law Office of William H. Clendenen, Jr., 400 Orange Street, P.O. Box 301, New Haven, CT 06502. The Second Injury Fund was represented by Mee Carolyn Wong, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P. O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120, who did not appear at oral argument. This Petition for Review from the January 8, 1999 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard September 10, 1999 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the then Commission Chairman, Jesse M. Frankl, and Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Stephen B. Delaney. OPINION JESSE M. FRANKL, COMMISSIONER. The respondent Labor Force of America ("LFA") and Utica Mutual Insurance have petitioned for review from the January 8, 1999(fn1) Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District. In that decision the trial commissioner concluded that the claimant entered into a contract of service with LFA which subsequently lent him to Tait Moving Company, and thus found LFA responsible for the claimant's compensable injury pursuant to § 31-292. In support of their appeal, the appellants argue that there was no contract of service between the claimant and LFA, and therefore § 31-292 does not apply. The trial commissioner found the following relevant facts. On July 18, 1996, LFA was operating a temporary employment agency in New Haven, Connecticut. LFA was insured by Utica Mutual, which contended that it insured only its clerical staff but not its temporary employees (including the claimant). On July 18...