 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nickels v. Napolilli8/17/2001
The Trial Court Did Not Err in Finding that Nickels Is an Employee Covered Under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act.
On cross-appeal, the Napolillis argue that the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act's provisions do not apply because Nickels was not an "employee" for the statute's purposes. The superior court held a bench trial on the threshold issue of whether the workers' compensation statute applied to the facts of this case, and determined that Nickels was an employee under Alaska's workers' compensation law.
The Alaska Workers' Compensation Act covers "disability or death of an employee." The Act defines "employee" as "an employee employed by an employer." An "employer" is "a person employing one or more persons in connection with a business or industry coming within the scope of this chapter and carried on in this state." To determine whether the relationship between Nickels and the Napolillis falls within the scope of the Act, we must determine whether Nickels was an employee, and then determine whether the work she performed was within the scope of the Act.
1. Nickels and the Napolillis had an employee-employer relationship.
An express or implied contract or agreement of employment must exist for there to be an employee-employer relationship. The trial court found that Nickels and the Napolillis entered into an agreement by which Nickels provided at least eighty hours of work per month for the Napolillis. In exchange, the Napolillis compensated Nickels by providing a log home for her to live in and a place for her to keep her animals. The Napolillis characterize this agreement as a "rental agreement," while Nickels characterizes it as a employment relationship.
Substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the agreement between Nickels and the Napolillis constitutes an employment relationship. The application filled out by Nickels and Johnson refers to the position as a "job" and includes questions about relevant job experience. The agreement between Nickels and the Napolillis specifies the number of hours of labor required per month and a compensation rate for hours worked beyond that amount. The agreement also lists sixteen tasks for Nickels to perform, and reserves the Napolillis' right to terminate the agreement "if labor is not performed as indicated . . . or if said labor is not performed in a conscientious manner to Napolilli[s'] expectations." That the document also contains terms commonly found in a residential rental agreement does not diminish the legal significance of the agreement as an employment agreement.
Although the trial court found that Nickels and the Napolillis had an employment contract defining the terms of their relationship, the existence of a contract does not end the inquiry. The legal determination of whether an employee-employer relationship exists relies, in part, on consideration of the character of the "employee's" work and the relationship of work to the "employer's" business. We have explained elements of this "relative nature of the work" test in Searfus v. Northern Gas Company:
In evaluating the character of the claimant's work, the trier of fact is to consider the degree of skill involved, the degree to which it is a separate calling or business, and the extent to which it can be expected to carry its own accident burden.
Concerning the relationship of the claimant's work to the purported employer's business, the trier of fact is to consider how much it is a regular part of the employer's regular work, whether it is continuous or intermittent, and whether the duration is sufficient to amount to the hiring of continuing services as distinguished
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|