5380 CRB-4-08-9 (2009). Vazquez v. John Christino d/b/a Jack's Home Improvements.

CourtConnecticut
Connecticut Workers Compensation 2009. 5380 CRB-4-08-9 (2009). Vazquez v. John Christino d/b/a Jack's Home Improvements CASE NO.5380 CRB-4-08-9COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2009CARLOS VAZQUEZ CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. JOHN CHRISTINO d/b/a JACK'S HOME IMPROVEMENTS EMPLOYER NO RECORD OF INSURANCE and SECOND INJURY FUND RESPONDENT-APPELLANTAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by James L. Rappaport, Esq., Law Office of James L. Rappaport, 733 Summer Street, Stamford, CT 06901. The respondent Second Injury Fund was represented by Michael J. Belzer, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120. These Petitions for Review from the August 25, 2008 Ruling on the Respondent's Motion to Reopen Finding and the September 2, 2008 Order of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District were heard March 27, 2009 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Peter C. Mlynarczyk and Randy L Cohen.OPINION JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The respondent-Second Injury Fund [hereafter "Fund"] appeals from the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District's August 25, 2008 ruling denying the respondent's Motion to Reopen Finding and the trial commissioner's denial of the respondent's Motion to Correct. The appeal before us flows from the August 7, 2008 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District.While the Fund presents a number of issues for our consideration the threshold issue presented is whether the trial commissioner erred in failing to conclude that no employment relationship existed between the claimant and the uninsured respondent employer because the claimant's status as an illegal alien barred such a contract. Specifically, the respondent argues that an illegal alien should not be permitted to recover benefits provided pursuant to the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act. It is the contention of the respondent that the claimant's status as an illegal alien provides a legal impediment such that the claimant cannot enter into a legally valid employment contract. This argument was considered and rejected by our Supreme Court in Dowling v. Slotnik, 244 Conn. 781 (1998). The Dowling court squarely considered whether an illegal...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT