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