5336 CRB-2-08-4 (2009). Healey v. Hawkeye Construction, LLC.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5336 CRB-2-08-4 (2009).
Healey v. Hawkeye Construction, LLC
CASE NO. 5336
CRB-2-08-4COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 26, 2009THOMAS HEALEY CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v.
HAWKEYE CONSTRUCTION, LLC EMPLOYER and GALLAGHER BASSETT OF NEW YORK INSURER
RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES APPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Sean C. Donohue,
Esq., The Law Offices of Sean C. Donohue, 5 Shaw's Cove, Suite 202, New London,
CT 06320. The respondents were represented by Robert K. Jahn, Esq., Morrisson
Mahoney, LLP, One Constitution Plaza, 10th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103. This
Petition for Review from the April 1, 2008 Finding and Dismissal of the
Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard October 24, 2008 before a
Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A.
Mastropietro and Commissioners Ernie R. Walker and Charles F. Senich. OPINIONJOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN.This case presents the
question of when Connecticut possesses jurisdiction over injuries that occur
outside the state. The claimant, who was injured in Florida while working for a
New York employer, appeals from a Finding and Dismissal of his claim. We
conclude that based on the facts herein the state of Connecticut did not have a
substantial relationship to the claimant's employment. Therefore, we affirm the
trial commissioner and dismiss this appeal. Events subsequent to the 2004 hurricane season are the basis for
this claim. In September of that year the claimant, a member of the Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers' Union, (Local 104) based in Boston, Massachusetts, had
returned to his Connecticut home after having worked on hurricane recovery
efforts in Florida. Once he had returned home he found a message from his union
to contact the respondent-employer, a utility construction company located in
Hauppauge, New York, if he was interested in returning to Florida to work. The
claimant telephoned the respondent-employer from his Connecticut home and was
told to report to the respondent-employer's premises in New York prior to 11:00
p.m.
The trial commissioner was presented with somewhat conflicting
testimony as to the relationship between the parties immediately following the
phone call. The claimant testified that he indicated to the respondent-employer
during the telephone call that he accepted their employment and he further
testified it was his understanding that he would get paid from the moment he
hung the telephone up. A Vice President for the respondent, Charles Gravina,
testified that when a union member calls the respondent-employer agreeing to
work, the respondent-employer holds a spot for them. Mr. Gravina further
testified that a union member in transit from his home to the
respondent-employer's premises in New York is not paid for travel time, but is
paid from the time he arrives at the respondent-employer's premises. Mr.
Gravina further...
To continue reading
Request your trial