Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226

Background

Petitioner Thomas Phillips performed yard work and minor repairs for homeowners Norman and Diane Crocker in exchange for reduced rent; on Aug. 12, 2006 he fell from a ladder while cutting a branch and became a quadriplegic.
No one witnessed the fall; petitioner’s wife found him and summoned the Crockers; he was taken to a hospital where his BAC was ~.27.
Petitioner filed a workers’ compensation claim nearly three years later (Aug. 10, 2009). State Farm (homeowner insurer providing statutorily required domestic-employee WC coverage) denied benefits citing lack of employer-employee relationship, non-work-related injury, fault, and untimely notice.
DOL Hearing Officer awarded benefits; State Farm appealed to the Compensation Appeals Board (CAB). CAB found petitioner was an employee but denied benefits for untimely notice and because petitioner was intoxicated and the Crockers did not know he was intoxicated.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Phillips argued (1) the Crockers had timely actual notice so RSA 281-A:19/:20 shouldn’t bar the claim, and (2) RSA 281-A:14 (intoxication defense) was misapplied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an employer’s actual notice satisfies RSA 281-A:19 and :20	Phillips: Actual notice that injury occurred and was work-related is sufficient; written form not required.	State Farm: Written notice on commissioner’s form required, and homeowners with domestic employees should be held to different standard due to lack of sophistication.	Court: Reaffirmed Appeal of Gamas—actual notice suffices; reversed CAB’s bar for untimely notice.
Whether Appeal of Gamas should be overruled to require written notice	Phillips: Relies on Gamas; opposes overruling.	State Farm: Argues Gamas misread legislative history and should be overruled.	Court: Declined to overrule Gamas; stare decisis and legislative inaction support reaffirmation.
Whether RSA 281-A:14 (intoxication defense) bars claim where worker was intoxicated	Phillips: Admits intoxication but argues employer did not prove intoxication caused the injury; contends employer knew or should have known he drank.	State Farm/Crockers: Defense available because petitioner was intoxicated and Crockers didn’t know he was intoxicated.	Court: Vacated CAB’s application of intoxication defense—CAB failed to make findings on causation; remanded for CAB to determine whether intoxication caused injury.
Whether employer knew employee was intoxicated (so intoxication defense is inapplicable)	Phillips: Argues Crockers had constructive knowledge (knew he was alcoholic and often drank while working).	State Farm: Maintains Crockers did not know he was intoxicated at the time.	Court: Affirmed CAB’s finding that Crockers did not have actual knowledge of intoxication; statute requires actual knowledge at time of injury.

Key Cases Cited

Appeal of Gamas, 158 N.H. 646 (interpreting RSA 281-A:19/:20 and holding employer’s actual notice can satisfy statutory notice requirements)
Allison v. Company, 98 N.H. 434 (discussing intoxication defense and employer’s burden to prove intoxication caused injury)
LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734 (presumption that factfinder made necessary subsidiary findings)
Appeal of Lalime, 141 N.H. 534 (CAB is primary factfinder on factual issues such as causation)
Appeal of Dean Foods, 158 N.H. 467 (standard for appellate review of CAB factual findings)
Maplevale Builders v. Town of Danville, 165 N.H. 99 (stare decisis factors for overruling precedent)
Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284 (discussing doctrine of stare decisis)