5445 CRB-5-09-3 (2010). Cruz v. 31 Catherine Avenue, LLC.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 2010. 5445 CRB-5-09-3 (2010). Cruz v. 31 Catherine Avenue, LLC CASE NO. 5445 CRB-5-09-3COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONMARCH 2, 2010ARIEL CRUZ CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. 31 CATHERINE AVENUE, LLC EMPLOYER NO RECORD OF INSURANCE RESPONDENT-APPELLANT and SECOND INJURY FUND RESPONDENT-APPELLEEAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by J. StaceyYarbrough, Esq., Hersh and Crockett, 21 Oak Street, Suite 603, Hartford, CT 06106. The respondent 31 Catherine Avenue, LLC was represented by Dov Braunstein, Esq., Slavin, Stauffacher and Scott, LLC, 27 Sieman Company Drive, Suite 300W, P.O. Box 9, Watertown, CT 06795. The respondent Second Injury Fund was represented by 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 from the March 16, 2009 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District was hearing September 25, 2009 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Randy L. Cohen and Ernie R. Walker.OPINIONJOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. This appeal is based on a single question: did the trial commissioner correctly decide the claimant was an employee of the respondent, and not an independent contractor? We conclude the trial commissioner had sufficient probative evidence to sustain his conclusion that the claimant was an employee of the respondent. As a result, we affirm the Finding and Award and dismiss this appeal. The trial commissioner reached the following facts at the conclusion of the formal hearing. There was no dispute the claimant sustained serious injuries on June 20, 2005 as a result of a fall down accident at a job site owned by the respondent. The trial commissioner found that the claimant was "unsophisticated and had little in the way of skills or education." Finding, ¶ 5. The principal of the respondent, Mr. Jason Katz, was found to be a sophisticated real estate entrepreneur engaged in the business of rehabilitating old buildings. The commissioner found Mr. Katz hired individuals such as the claimant to perform manual labor required in these projects. The reconstruction and maintenance of these buildings and structures was supervised by a Mr. Michael Fine, a person hired by Mr. Katz. The commissioner found that Mr. Katz and the claimant had commenced their business relationship in 2004. The claimant was instructed by Mr. Katz and Mr. Fine as to the work he was to perform. The claimant was paid $10.00 per hour for 40 hours per week and lived rent free in one...