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...
To continue reading
Request your trial