Acceptance of job offer on phone allows application of Conn. law

The formation of an employment contract in Connecticut between a worker residing in Connecticut and an out-of-state employer provides a sufficient basis for Connecticut law to be applied to the worker's claims for workers' compensation benefits.

Case name: Healey v. Hawkeye Construction, LLC, et al., No. AC 30894 (Conn. App. Ct. 10/05/10).

Ruling: The Connecticut Appellate Court held that an electrician's workers' compensation claim was properly brought in Connecticut.

Arrest for assault, drugs not enough to end benefits (11/07/11)
Correction officer's denial of prior back injury proves costly (06/20/11)
Wrist surgery, scar justify benefits for arm injury (12/22/11)
Doorman gets second chance to prove he is an employee of bar (07/19/12)
Teacher strikes out on claim for benefits for softball game injury (09/06/11)

What it means: The formation of an employment contract in Connecticut between a worker residing in Connecticut and an out-of-state employer provides a sufficient basis for Connecticut law to be applied to the worker's claims for workers' compensation benefits.

Summary: An electrician residing in Connecticut heard of a New York-based utility construction company looking for workers to travel to Florida to repair hurricane damage. The electrician called the company, and the company offered him a position, which he accepted. The electrician immediately traveled to New York to complete the employment paperwork. While working in Florida, the electrician suffered a compensable injury to his knee. The electrician sought workers' compensation benefits in Connecticut. The Connecticut Appellate Court held that Connecticut law could be applied to his claim because the state had a significant relationship to his employment contract with the company.

For Connecticut law to apply to a claim for workers' compensation benefits, it is required "at a minimum, a showing of a significant relationship between Connecticut and either the employment contract or the employment relationship." In this claim, there was no claim that Connecticut was the place of the employment relationship. The worker argued that the employment contract was formed in Connecticut. The court noted that in cases where a contract is made by telephone, "the contract is created at the place where the acceptor speaks." Therefore, the court agreed with the worker and concluded that the employment contract was formed in Connecticut.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

December 16, 2010

Newsletter Sign-up