5388 CRB 2-08-10 (2009). Jordan v. Reindeau & Sons Logging, LLC.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 2009. 5388 CRB 2-08-10 (2009). Jordan v. Reindeau & Sons Logging, LLC CASE NO. 5388 CRB 2-08-10COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2009PETER R. JORDAN CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. REINDEAU and SONS LOGGING, LLC EMPLOYER NO RECORD OF INSURANCE RESPONDENT-APPELLEE and SECOND INJURY FUND RESPONDENT-APPELLEEAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Beth A. Steele, Esq., DiFrancesca and Steele, P.C., 811 Boswell Avenue, P.O. Box 548, Norwich, CT 06360. The respondent employer was represented by Richard T. Stabnick, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton and Stabnick, LLC, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033. Also noticed was Elaine Stuhlman, Esq., Stuhlman and Dombrowski, P.C., 541 Cromwell Avenue, Rocky Hill, CT 06067. Notice to the respondent Second Injury Fund was sent to Yinxia Long, 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 October 16, 2008 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard August 28, 2009 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Peter C. Mlynarczyk and Randy L. Cohen.OPINIONJOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant in this matter has appealed from a Finding and Dismissal of his claim based on jurisdictional grounds. He argues that the trial commissioner erred by determining that he was an independent contractor. He believes the evidence clearly established an employer-employee relationship. We conclude that this matter goes to the weight of the evidence. Both the claimant and the respondent offered substantial evidence supporting their position on the issue of whether the claimant was an employee. The trial commissioner, in apparent reliance upon Hanson v. Transportation General, Inc., 245 Conn. 613 (1998), applied the "totality of the factors" test and determined that the respondent offered the more persuasive argument. We conclude this was a determination reached by weighing the evidence, and thus, it was an issue for the trial commissioner to resolve. We find no legal error, and therefore, affirm the Finding and Dismissal.The trial commissioner reached the following findings of fact which are pertinent to this appeal. He found that the respondent, Reindeau and Sons Logging, LLC was a business formed by and operated by Brian and Carl Reindeau. The business of the firm was to harvest timber on the property of private landowners. The firm generally booked work one or two years in advance and obtained all the necessary permits. Most of the firm's contracts involved the selective cutting of trees which were a certain diameter or larger. Reindeau and Sons would retain the services of individuals called "choppers" who used chainsaws to cut down the trees. A principal of Reindeau and Sons would mark the boundary of the area where to have trees cut and would walk the property with the chopper so as to identify what types of trees were to be cut. In July 2004 the claimant approached Carl Reindeau about working as a chopper. Carl told the claimant he needed to discuss this with his brother Brian. The next day the claimant was hired by the respondent. He was initially paid $175 per day for an eight hour day. He did not receive any overtime pay. In the spring of 2005 the claimant received an unsolicited raise to $200 per day. The claimant had held a certificate from the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection as a...