 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fliehler v. Uninsured Employers Fund6/11/2002
Submitted on Briefs: February 21, 2002
Richard Fliehler filed a claim with the Uninsured Employers' Fund (the "UEF"), which denied the claim. Fliehler then filed a Petition for Trial in the Workers' Compensation Court (the "WCC"). The WCC found that Fliehler was entitled to compensation benefits and costs from the UEF. The UEF filed this appeal and we affirm.
The following issue is dispositive of this appeal:
Did the Workers' Compensation Court err in concluding that Fliehler was an "employee or worker in this state" as defined by §§ 39-71-118(10)(a), MCA (1997)?
BACKGROUND
Greg Casey owns a business named The Restaurant Installation Company, which installs restaurant kitchens. On April 23, 1999, Fliehler suffered an injury when he fell off a ladder during his employment with Casey. The accident took place at a job site in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Since 1997, Casey has resided in a home outside Big Fork, Montana. His work crew, including Fliehler, also reside in the Big Fork area. Because Casey considered the members of his work crew to be independent contractors, he did not maintain workers' compensation coverage for his business.
Typically, when a restaurant designer notified Casey that a job was available, Casey would gather his crew and drive to the site. This normally involved an initial departure from the Big Fork area. Occasionally, however, Casey and his crew would travel from one out-of-state job site to the next. They would travel together in a pickup truck owned by Casey. The truck is also where they permanently kept all of the tools necessary for their jobs.
In the two years before Fliehler's injury, Casey installed kitchens primarily for three restaurant chains: Marie Callender's, East Side Mario's and McGrath's Fish House. Casey's work projects took place in several western states, including Idaho, Oregon, Washington, California, Texas, Colorado and Oklahoma. He never undertook any projects in Montana, and he testified that the majority of his jobs were in California.
Fliehler filed a workers' compensation claim with the UEF, which denied coverage because of a lack of medical information. Fliehler then filed a Petition for Trial in the WCC. While Fliehler was able to provide medical information establishing that he was injured, the UEF countered that Montana law did not govern Fliehler. Specifically, the UEF argued that Fliehler was not an "employee or worker in this state," pursuant to §§ 39-71-118(10)(a), MCA (1997).
The WCC concluded that Fliehler was an employee of Casey, rather than an independent contractor. The WCC further concluded that Fliehler was an "employee or worker in this state" and thus entitled to workers' compensation benefits and costs from the UEF. The UEF then sought to amend the WCC's findings and conclusions through a post-trial motion. The WCC denied the UEF's motion and issued its "Order Amending Findings of Fact." The UEF then filed this appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because the parties do not dispute the relevant facts, this appeal presents only a question of law. We review a Workers' Compensation Court's conclusions of law to determine if they are correct. See Russette v. Chippewa Cree Hous. Auth. (1994), 265 Mont. 90, 91-92, 874 P.2d 1217, 1218.
DISCUSSION
Did the Workers' Compensation Court err in concluding that Fliehler was an "employee or worker in this state" as defined by §§ 39-71-118(10)(a), MCA (1997)?
The UEF argues that the WCC erred in concluding that the Montana Workers' Compensation Act (the "Act") applied to Fliehler. In deciding that t
Page 1 2 Montana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|