Rodriguez v. E.D. Construction, Inc.
12 A.3d 603
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- On June 14, 2003, Rodriguez injured himself while installing a rubber roof for E.D. Construction, Inc. in Norwalk.
- Rodriguez claimed he was an employee of E.D. Construction at the time of the accident; the defendant denied compensability, contending he was an independent contractor.
- The commissioner held nine hearings over two years and heard extensive conflicting evidence about control, payment, training, tools, and independent contracting status.
- Evidence showed Rodriguez used his own tools and was paid hourly; he claimed training and control by the defendant, but the defendant argued he worked autonomously with his own business.
- The defendant presented testimony that Rodriguez spoke English well, used his own tools, issued 1099 forms, and operated independently, while Rodriguez alleged language barriers and employer control.
- The commissioner found Rodriguez could read and understand English and concluded he elected to become an independent contractor; the claim was dismissed for lack of employee status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commissioner properly applied the right to control test. | Rodriguez argues one factor (exclusion forms) dominated. | Totality of evidence supports independent contractor status. | No reversible error; proper application of right to control supported independent contractor status. |
| Whether the board properly affirmed the commissioner's finding of independent contractor status. | Board erred by deferring to conflicting subordinate facts. | Commissioner’s findings were supported by evidence; credibility determinations were valid. | Board did not err; findings supported dismissal of benefits. |
| Whether the exclusionary forms alone would dictate employee status. | Reliance on exclusion forms was dispositive and improper. | Forms were one factor among many; total record supports independent contractor status. | Exclusion forms were not dispositive; overall record supports independent contractor status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanson v. Transportation General, Inc., 245 Conn. 613 (1998) (right to control is central to employee vs independent contractor analysis)
- Chute v. Mobil Shipping & Transportation Co., 32 Conn. App. 16 (1993) (multi-factor test for contractor status; no single factor controlling)
- Bourgeois v. Cacciapuoti, 138 Conn. 317 (1951) (owner’s right to discharge and control factors weigh on status)
- Tianti v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 231 Conn. 690 (1995) (issuance of 1099 forms as indicia of independent contracting)
- Daubert v. Naugatuck, 267 Conn. 583 (2004) (clearly erroneous standard; credibility in weighing facts)
- Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Allen, 83 Conn. App. 526 (2004) (appellate review of factual inferences under correct law application)
- Cable v. Bic Corp., 270 Conn. 433 (2004) (regulatory-briefing template; findings may be crafted without detailing every evidentiary fragment)