LOIS Senior Associate Kristine Rosales and LOIS Paralegal Andrea Hayles secured a discharge and removal from notice in a New York Workers’ Compensation occupational disease trial. The Claimant, a building superintendent, alleged an occupational disease, and the building owner, the former property manager, and the current property manager were placed on notice for an employer-employee trial. During the trial, the Claimant stated that he actually worked for the current property manager. While he conceded he signed an employment agreement with the former property manager and the building owner, he clarified that he thereafter worked for the current property manager, who supervised him at the jobsite, provided him tools, generated all reports, and paid him via direct deposit. While he did not sign a contract of employment with the current property manager, he re-confirmed that the current property manager is his employer.
Then, the former property manager witness was presented and produced a contract showing that the Claimant actually worked for the building owner. On cross-examination by Attorney Rosales, the witness confirmed that the Claimant only worked for the building owner for a short duration until the current property manager took over. Attorney Rosales argued that the record indicated that the Claimant worked for the building owner only for a brief period until the current property manager took over, and any employer-employee relationship that may have existed between the Claimant and the building owner antedated the date of disablement. Attorney Rosales argued that just because the paystubs were not updated, that does not imply an employer-employee relationship, and that the current property manager processed the payroll and paid the Claimant via direct deposit, supervised the Claimant, and provided tools. Most importantly, Attorney Rosales cited the correspondence whereby the current property manager’s Human Resources conceded an employer-employee relationship.
The Law Judge upheld the position of Attorney Rosales and found the current property manager as the proper employer in light of the power of control wielded by the current property manager. While the Law Judge found that the paystubs under the name of the building owner were a strong factor, other attendant factors need to be considered to determine employer-employee relationship. Thus, the current property manager was found the proper employer. As a result of this favorable decision, the Carrier is not liable for any incurred bills or any indemnity benefits related to the claim.
