Case Name: Leonce T. MICHAUD v. CHARLES R. STEEVES & SONS, INC., et al.
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1972-01-19
Citations: 286 A.2d 336
Docket Number: 
Parties: Leonce T. MICHAUD v. CHARLES R. STEEVES & SONS, INC., et al.
Judges: Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEB-BER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY and WERNICK, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 286
Pages: 336–344

Head Matter:
Leonce T. MICHAUD v. CHARLES R. STEEVES & SONS, INC., et al.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Jan. 19, 1972.
Rudman, Rudman & Carter by Lawrence E. Merrill, Bangor, Wakine G. Tanous, E. Millinocket, for plaintiff.
Mitchell & Ballou by James E. Mitchell, John W. Ballou, Bangor, for defendants.
Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEB-BER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY and WERNICK, JJ.

Opinion:
WEBBER, Justice.
Appellant Michaud seeks review of a decision of the Industrial Accident Commission which determined that Michaud was not in the employ of appellee Steeves when he suffered an accidental injury while working on the premises of one Wena Emerson. Steeves is a supplier of hardware and plumbing equipment and as such has had occasion frequently to contract for the services of Michaud on a job by job basis to perform carpentry work incidental to the installation of its products. In the instant case Steeves had contracted with Mrs. Emerson to replace a sink and counter and install new cabinets in her kitchen and arranged with Michaud to do the necessary carpentry work on the job. Whether Michaud did this work as an employee of Steeves or as an independent contractor is debatable but need not concern us here for reasons which will appear.
As the kitchen work was nearing completion Mrs. Emerson made an independent arrangement with Michaud to install for her a new kitchen ceiling. It was during the course of the ceiling work that Michaud suffered the fall which gives rise to this claim. On the basis of credible supportive evidence the Commission found in effect that Steeves was not concerned with the ceiling job other than to supply the materials therefor on Michaud's order and that at the time of the accident Michaud was not in the employ of Steeves but was working directly for Mrs. Emerson.
Certain provisions of the statutes are applicable and controlling here. 39 M.R.S.A., Sec. 2(5) provides in part:
" 'Employe' shall include every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written
Section 99 includes this provision:
"His (Commissioner's) decision, in the absence of fraud, upon all questions of fact shall be final
Under the statute the petitioner was first required to show that he was doing the ceiling work for Steeves under "a contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written." Unless that could first be shown, the issue as to whether he was employed as an employee or as an independent contractor would never be reached. The Commission decided the primary issue against the petitioner and concluded that with respect to the ceiling he was not working for Steeves in any capacity. Thus cases dealing with the criteria on which determination is made as to whether one furnishing services is an employee or an independent contractor have no application here. It will serve no useful purpose to recite the evidence in detail. It suffices to say that there was credible evidence upon which to base the finding of the Commission. Under these circumstances the decision below will not be disturbed.
Appeal denied. Ordered that an allowance of $350.00 to cover fees and expenses of counsel, plus cost of the record, be paid by the Appellees to the Appellant.
WEBBER, WEATHERBEE, POM-EROY and WERNICK, JJ., concurring.
DUFRESNE, C. J., dissenting.