5429 CRB-5-09-2 (2010). Brockenberry v. Thomas Deegan d/b/a Tom's Scrap Metal, Inc.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 2010. 5429 CRB-5-09-2 (2010). Brockenberry v. Thomas Deegan d/b/a Tom's Scrap Metal, Inc CASE NO. 5429 CRB-5-09-2COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONJANUARY 22, 2010ALAN BROCKENBERRY CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. THOMAS DEEGAN d/b/a TOM's SCRAP METAL, INC. EMPLOYER NO RECORD OF INSURANCE and SECOND INJURY FUND RESPONDENT-APPELLEE APPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Jack Senich, Esq., The Senich Law Firm, LLC, 390 Middlebury Road, Middlebury, CT 06762. The respondent-employer was pro se and did not file a brief or attend oral argument. The respondent Second Injury Fund was represented by Lawrence G. Widem, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120. This Petition for Review from the February 2, 2009 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth 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 appeals from the dismissal of his claim. The trial commissioner concluded, after hearing testimony as to the nature of the claimant's business relationship with the respondent, that the claimant failed to prove the presence of an employer-employee relationship. Since this determination was based largely on the trial commissioner's evaluation of the claimant's credibility, we affirm this decision and dismiss this appeal. The circumstances of this case are somewhat atypical. The parties agree that on June 27, 2006 the claimant injured his thumb while removing scrap metal from railroad yards in the south end of Waterbury. The claimant and the respondent offered differing accounts as to the nature of the business relationship between the parties engaged in this endeavor. In addition, the trial commissioner concluded there was a question as to the propriety of the entire undertaking. The claimant testified that he was hired by the respondent, Thomas Deegan, to remove scrap metal. He had met Mr. Deegan through Narcotics Anonymous and at the time of the incident the claimant was Mr. Deegan's roommate. The claimant testified that Mr. Deegan had approached him about working with him in the scrap metal business, and had hired him earlier on the day he had been injured. The claimant testified that he was to be paid by the hour. Mr. Deegan chose the location where the scrap metal was to be removed and the claimant testified Mr. Deegan had driven him to that location. Once there, the claimant testified Mr. Deegan directed him to remove brush, and the injury occurred while this was...