State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links

CRB Case Annotations re: Section 31-292

Liability for worker lent.

PREVIOUS Section | NEXT Section | MENU for CRB Annotations

THESE ANNOTATIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

Full texts of opinions, statutes and court decisions should be consulted and all citations and references fully researched by the reader.

The Annotations to Compensation Review Board Opinions are presented “as is” and the Commission makes no warranties as to the suitability of this information for any given purpose.
Please note also that Annotations change periodically due to several factors including, but not limited to, Appellate and Supreme Court decisions issued in workers’ compensation cases.

Degnan v. Employee Staffing of America, Inc., a/k/a Labor Force of America, 4580 CRB-3-02-10 (October 27, 2003).

CRB affirmed conclusion that temporary worker was employee of staffing agency, as application of § 31-292 to trier’s factual findings allowed such a conclusion. See also, Degnan, § 31-275(9), § 31-348, 31-355(b).

Kearse v. Labor Force of America, 3968 CRB-3-99-1 (February 1, 2000).

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s conclusion that claimant entered into a contract of service with LFA which subsequently lent him to Tait Moving Company. LFA was thus liable to pay compensation for the claimant’s compensable injury pursuant to § 31-292. See also, Kearse, § 31-301-9.

Nadeau v. J.H. Scelza, Inc., 3903 CRB-6-98-9 (January 13, 2000).

CRB affirmed the trier’s conclusion that the claimant was acting as an employee of the respondent when he was injured. Although the claimant owned his own siding business and chose not to be covered under his workers’ compensation policy, he was injured while working outside the scope of his business. Specifically, the claimant was assisting the respondent with the removal of a window and was under the direction and control of the respondent for that project. CRB found no merit to the respondents’ argument that the claimant was a loaned employee, as the claimant was not under a contract of employment with an employer which could loan him to another employer within the meaning of § 31-292. See also, Nadeau, § 31-275(9).

Grebla v. Timely Temps, Inc., 3950 CRB-4-98-12 (December 22, 1999).

CRB affirmed trier’s ruling that § 31-292 did not apply to the instant case because there was no “contract of service” between the claimant and the employment agency (Timely Temps). Aside from his receipt of his weekly checks via mail, the only other connection between the claimant and Timely Temps was a telephone call to the claimant from Timely Temps instructing him to return to the employer (Robohand) to fill out an application for Timely Temps after he had already applied and interviewed at Robohand.

Minuit v. P.D.F. Construction Co., 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 133, 3145 CRB-3-95-7 (November 26, 1996).

The CRB in Minuit v. P.D.F. Construction Co., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 1551 CRB-3-92-11 (October 7, 1994), held that the trial commissioner had improperly concluded that Shoreline had lent the claimant to P.D.F. pursuant to § 31-292, and thus remanded the matter to the trial commissioner. On remand, the trial commissioner concluded that the claimant was an employee of P.D.F. Construction. CRB discussed the meaning of lent employee under § 31-292, and concluded that trial commissioner properly determined that Shoreline did not lend the claimant to P.D.F. but rather that claimant was an employee of P.D.F.

Velez-Ramos v. Labor Force of America, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 119, 3070 CRB-4-95-5 (November 25, 1996).

Claimant worked at Contract Plating plant, for whom LFA performed payroll servicing. Commissioner found no contract of service between claimant and LFA, and rejected Contract Plating’s argument that claimant was a lent employee of LFA. Affirmed; key factor in establishing employment relationship is employer’s authority to control means and methods of employee’s work. Only connection commissioner drew between claimant and LFA was mailing of paychecks, in accordance with agreement between LFA and Contract Plating. LFA had no input into performance of claimant’s work, and had no direct contact with claimant before he was injured. CRB declined to base its decision on policy considerations regarding temporary employment agencies.

Minuit v. P.D.F. Construction Co., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 1551 CRB-3-92-11 (October 7, 1994).

Facts found by commissioner did not support legal conclusion that claimant was lent by Shoreline Masonry to PDF Construction. Commissioner made implicit finding that claimant was an employee of Shoreline based on sufficient evidence at time of injury, and did not make findings consistent with the conclusion that Shoreline parted with claimant’s services. CRB did note that PDF Construction may be liable as principal employer under § 31-291. Remanded.

Daly v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 144, 855 CRD-1-89-4 (August 20, 1990).

Trial commissioner’s finding that claimants were temporarily lent by the employer to the respondent union and therefore were employees of the respondent union at the time of accident will not be disturbed. See, Lucarelli v. Earle C. Dodds, Inc., 121 Conn. 640 (1936).

PREVIOUS Section | NEXT Section | MENU for CRB Annotations

State of Connecticut

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: December 17, 2013

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/annotations/an31-292.htm

Workers’ Compensation Commission Disclaimer, Privacy Policy and Website Accessibility

State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links