5316 CRB-7-08-1 (2009). Rodriguez v. Ed Construction a/k/a E.D. Construction, Inc.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5316 CRB-7-08-1 (2009).
Rodriguez v. Ed Construction a/k/a E.D. Construction, Inc
CASE NO. 5316 CRB-7-08-1COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COMMISSION MAY
11, 2009RAMIRO
RODRIGUEZ CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. ED CONSTRUCTION a/k/a E.D. CONSTRUCTION, INC.
EMPLOYER and TRAVELERS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
and CNA CLAIM PLUS INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES and SECOND INJURY FUND
RESPONDENT-APPELLEE APPEARANCES: RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. ED
CONSTRUCTION a/k/a E.D. CONSTRUCTION, INC. EMPLOYER and TRAVELERS PROPERTY
& CASUALTY INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES and CNA CLAIM PLUS INSURER
RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES and SECOND INJURY FUND RESPONDENT-APPELLEE APPEARANCES:
The claimant was represented by James T. Baldwin, Esq., Coles, Baldwin &
Kaiser, Attorneys and Counselors at Law, 1261 Post Road, P.O. Box 577,
Fairfield, CT 06824. The respondent Ed Construction a/k/a E.D. Construction,
Inc., was represented by Robert J. Sciglimpaglia, Esq., The Law Offices of BT
Canty, 193 East Avenue, Norwalk, CT 06855. The respondent Travelers Property
& Casualty was represented by Tracy Green Cleary, Esq., Law Offices of
Cynthia M. Garraty, Crossroads Corporate Park, 6 Devine Street, 1st Floor,
North Haven, CT 06473. The respondent CNA ClaimsPlus was represented by Sean
Nourie, Esq., Conway & Stoughton, LLP, 818 Farmington Avenue, West
Hartford, CT 06119. The respondent Second Injury fund was represented by Lisa
Weiss, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm
Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120. This Petition for Review(fn1)
from the January 10, 2008 Finding & Dismissal of the Commissioner acting
for the Seventh District was heard January 23, 2009 before a Compensation
Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro
and Commissioners Peter C. Mlynarczyk and Stephen B. Delaney. OPINIONJOHN
A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The present appeal involves the question as
to whether the claimant was an employee or an independent contractor at the
time of his injury. Two central questions need to be resolved in the claimant's
favor in order to award benefits under Chapter 568. The claimant must
demonstrate he or she is credible and the claimant has the burden of proving
the presence of an employer-employee relationship. The claimant herein is
appealing the denial of benefits under this act. Upon reviewing the record
before the trial commissioner we conclude he resolved those two central issues
in a manner adverse to the claimant. Since these pose questions of fact, we are
unable to reach a contrary result. We affirm the Finding and Dismissal and
dismiss this appeal. A workplace accident on June 14, 2003, which in the words of the
trial commissioner resulted in "horrific and catastrophic injuries" to the
claimant prompted this claim. On that date the claimant was working on a roof
and was in the process of drying moist plywood with a torch when an explosion
and fire occurred. Therefore, there is no dispute that the claimant's injuries
are the result of injuries incurred while he was employed. The sole issue for
our consideration is whether the claimant was an employee of the respondent ED
Construction at the time of this accident, or as the respondent maintains, was
an independent contractor who was responsible for his own insurance against
workplace injuries.
The trial commissioner found the following facts which are
relevant to our appellate review. The claimant, a native of Mexico, was not
proficient in roofing work when he commenced working for ED Construction. He
testified that he learned how to do roofing from ED's principal, Ed Devingo,
and after about two years was proficient at the trade. He was originally paid
$100 per day but then was paid by the hour. At the time of the claimant's
accident he was being paid at the rate of $20 per hour, and depending on the
weather, was working 30 to 42 hours per week. The claimant produced evidence
that he cashed over $65,000 of checks from ED Construction during the three
years prior to the accident.
The claimant's evidence also included 1099 Federal Income Tax
forms from E.D. Construction, Inc. to Ramiro Rodriguez for miscellaneous income
for the years 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. He also executed various forms
acknowledging that he was a subcontractor for ED Construction and was excluded
from coverage under the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act. The claimant
testified that he did not understand English and did not understand the
consequences of executing the forms excluding himself from workers'
compensation coverage. The trial commissioner specifically did not
find these facts after considering the claimant's testimony. The claimant also
executed a form representing that he would carry general liability insurance as
a condition of working for ED Construction; and executed a general liability
insurance policy, which named ED Construction as the certificate...
To continue reading
Request your trial