 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Potter v. Hawaii Newspaper Agency2/19/1999
sold or delivered to its customers. Applying the control test, we conclude that the level of control exerted by HNA over the method and details of Claimant's work was sufficient to create an employer-employee relationship. "D. Estoppel ". . . . "1. "The theory of equitable estoppel requires proof that one person wilfully caused another person to erroneously believe a certain state of things, and that person reasonably relied on this erroneous belief to his or her detriment. Maria v. Freitas, 73 Haw. 266, 273 (1992). Claimant contends that he detrimentally relied on HNA's classification of his status as independent contractor; as a result, he did not make a claim for workers' compensation benefits and, instead, incurred time and expense to bring a civil lawsuit to recover damages for his injuries. We disagree. "While HNA may have labeled Claimant as an independent contractor, we have found no evidence that HNA wilfully caused Claimant to believe that he would not be entitled to workers' compensation benefits and could only seek judicial relief for injuries relating to his work. There is also no evidence of reasonable reliance. Our review of the record indicates that Claimant, who was represented by an attorney, chose to seek relief in court, rather than under Chapter 386. "2. "A species of equitable estoppel, the principle of quasi estoppel[,] precludes a party from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right inconsistent with a position previously taken. Maria v. Freitas, supra at 274. . . . "In this case, HNA never took the position that Claimant was not covered by or entitled to benefits under Chapter 386 because he was an independent contractor. The fact that HNA may have labeled Claimant as an independent contractor is not sufficient for us to apply quasi estoppel in this case. "Accordingly, we conclude that Claimant was an employee of HNA on the date of his injury."
On August 27, 1997, Potter filed a motion to reopen and/or for clarification of the LIRAB's decision. In support of the motion, Potter argued that the jurisdiction of the LIRAB was limited to those circumstances wherein a claim for workers' compensation benefits had been made and that, inasmuch as he had not made such a claim, the LIRAB's decision had been purely declaratory in nature and amounted to a ruling that, should Potter file a claim for workers' compensation benefits, even though he signed an independent contractor agreement, he would be considered an employee. Upon payment of such benefits by the HNA, Potter conceded, the HNA would be entitled to the tort defense afforded by HRS § 386-5 (1993). However, Potter reasoned, inasmuch as the HNA had elected to contract with Potter as an independent contractor, it chose not to come under HRS ch. 386, and, therefore, it was without standing to invoke the jurisdiction of either the Director or the LIRAB, in the absence of a claim for benefits by Potter and in order merely to obtain a ruling that it was entitled to an HRS § 386-5 defense.
On December 17, 1997, a divided LIRAB denied Potter's motion to reopen and/or for clarification. A Dissenting member of the Board opined:
"The Board, at this juncture, does not have jurisdiction to render an opinion or decision in this particular case. "Jurisdiction in a worker's compensation case vests upon the director only when a claim for benefits is filed by an employee. In the absence of such claim, the director may not, motu proprio, initiate an investigation and render a decision. If the director does not have jurisdiction to render a ruling or decision, neither does the Board."
As Section 386-86, Hawaii Revised Statutes, provides inter alia:
"If a claim for compensation is made, the director sh
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|