Opinion
CASE NO. 1169 CRD-2-91-1
APRIL 23, 1992
The claimant was represented by Jan P. Vander Werff, Esq., Law Office of Van A. Starkweather.
Respondent-employer was represented by Ralph Bergman, Esq.
The Second Injury Fund was represented by Gerard Rucci, Esq., and Taka Iwashita, Esq., Assistant Attorney General. However, the Fund did not file a brief in the instant matter.
This petition for Review from the January 14, 1991 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Second District was heard November 22, 1991 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and Donald H. Doyle.
OPINION
Here involved is a jurisdictional question, i.e. whether there was an employer-employee relationship and whether the injured claimant was an employee?
The trial commissioner found claimant, a truck driver, was an employee of the respondent on May 14, 1990. On that date the claimant slipped while descending from the truck he was driving and fractured his leg. The commissioner concluded the injury arose in and out of the course of employment. Respondent argues that the injury could not be employment related as claimant volunteer not an employee.
Whether an individual is an employee or not is a question of fact. Francis v. Franklin Cafeteria, Inc., 123 Conn. 320 (1937). On appeal we may only determine whether the trier's conclusion was contrary to law, based on unreasonable or impermissible factual inferences or without evidence. Fair v. People's Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535 (1988). The employee status determination needs to ascertain whether the putative employer has the right to control the individual's work activity. Kaliszewski v. Weathermaster Alsco Corp. 148 Conn. 624, 629 (1961). In this case the trier found that the respondent directed the routes to be followed on each trip ordered and the destinations to be reached. The respondent also paid for the gasoline used in addition to all insurance and licensing fees. See paragraphs 7, 9 10.
Our review reveals that there was support for those findings and conclusions in the evidentiary record. See e.g. December 17, 1990 TR at 9-12, 21, 56-57. Nor can we say conclusions were based on unreasonable or impermissible factual inferences or that they were contrary to law.
We therefore affirm the January 14, 1991 Finding and Award and dismiss the appeal.
Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and Donald H. Doyle concur.