Melendez v. Fresh Start General Remodeling & Contracting, LLC
180 Conn. App. 355
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Claimant (Melendez) worked for ~11 weeks for respondent Michael Gramegna (owner/principal of Fresh Start) performing moving and remodeling tasks, paid $8/hr in cash, averaging ~38.5 hours/week.
- Claimant was injured in a car accident on Jan 13, 2012 while being driven by Gramegna’s girlfriend to Gramegna’s Bolton home; claimant filed three Form 30Cs naming Gramegna and his LLCs.
- Commissioner held Gramegna personally liable in a 2013 award; that award was vacated after a motion to open for notice issues, and commissioner reopened record allowing Gramegna to file proposed findings and brief.
- Commissioner issued a new (2015) finding and award holding Gramegna personally liable; the Workers’ Compensation Review Board affirmed, and Gramegna appealed.
- Central legal questions: whether claimant was an “employee” (not excluded as a domestic worker or casual laborer) under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-275(9) and whether Gramegna received adequate due process notice of personal liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant was "regularly employed" >26 hrs/week (private dwelling exclusion) | Claimant: worked consistent schedule ~4–5 days, 6–10 hrs/day, avg ~38.5 hrs/wk during the 11-week period — thus regularly employed | Gramegna: Smith v. Yurkovsky requires using a 52-week period to determine regular employment; claimant worked only 11 weeks so exclusion applies | Court: Smith’s 52-week frame not reasonable for an 11-week employment period; commissioner properly evaluated the actual 11-week "usual practice" and claimant met >26 hrs/wk — employee covered |
| Whether claimant was a "casual laborer" excluded from coverage | Claimant: work was recurring and regular over the 11 weeks and thus not casual | Gramegna: work was short-term, ran its course, and lacked expectation of continuation — therefore casual | Court: Claimant may rebut via motion to correct; Gramegna failed to file motion to correct after 2015 award; court declines to consider this challenge on appeal |
| Whether Gramegna received reasonable notice of potential personal liability (due process) | Claimant: Form 30C named Gramegna individually; he received the forms and later was given an opportunity to brief after the award was vacated, so process was adequate | Gramegna: lacked notice of pro forma hearing and of deadline to submit brief; first learned of personal liability in 2013 award | Court: Even if 2013 procedures were deficient, that award was vacated; Gramegna had full opportunity to be heard before the 2015 award (filed proposed findings/brief) — no due process violation |
| Standard of review for commissioner’s factual findings | Claimant: commissioner’s credibility and factual findings entitled to deference; board’s affirmance should stand if supported by evidence | Gramegna: argues findings were incorrect or inconsistent and should be overturned | Court: applies deferential standard — findings stand if record supports them; here record supports commissioner’s conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Yurkovsky, 265 Conn. 816 (interpreting “regularly employed” and using a 52-week period where reasonable)
- Vanzant v. Hall, 219 Conn. 674 (explaining that casual employment is excluded from workers’ compensation and motion to correct procedure)
- Passalugo v. Guida-Seibert Dairy Co., 149 Conn. App. 478 (standard of review for commissioner’s factual findings)
- Sullins v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 315 Conn. 543 (deference to commissioner and review board statutory constructions)
- Gamez-Reyes v. Biagi, 136 Conn. App. 258 (example of upholding commissioner’s conclusions when supported by facts)
- Thompson v. Twiss, 90 Conn. 444 (definition of casual employment)
- Pallanck v. Donovan, 105 Conn. 591 (employment recurring regularly is not casual)