Opinion ID: 1177947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: definition of employer

Text: The determination of whether Donald was an employee under the Searfus-Ostrem test requires a threshold determination of whether Kroll was an employer within the ambit of the Workers' Compensation Act. The issue of whether Kroll was an employer is critical both as a precondition to the application of the Act [4] and as an element of the relative nature of the work test. Thus, only if it is determined that Kroll acted as an employer in the course of his construction activities may Donald reasonably be said to have been engaged in work which was a regular part of the employer's regular work. Ostrem v. Alaska Workmen's Compensation Board, 511 P.2d at 1063. [5] For purposes of the Act, an employer is defined as a person employing one or more persons in connection with a business or industry coming within the scope of this chapter. AS 23.30.265(12). The Board stated in this regard: The definition of subsection (12) `in connection with a business or industry coming within the scope of this chapter' is interpreted to mean all business or industry is to be considered as covered by the Act and that interpretation would follow Larson's which includes every person in the service of another under contract. [Emphasis added.] The Board's broad construction of AS 23.30.265(12) fails to give proper weight to the statutory limitation to employment relationships in connection with a business or industry. In Larson's terms, [6] the policy question is whether Kroll's construction activity, either by itself or as an element of his rental activities, [7] was a profit-making enterprise which ought to bear the costs of injuries incurred in the business, or was the construction activity simply a cost-cutting shortcut in what was basically a consumptive and not a productive roll played by Kroll. [8] We conclude that the Board's statement with respect to the parameters of the statutory definition of an employer reflects an erroneous standard of law. As a result, the threshold issue of whether Kroll's construction activity was sufficient to establish his status as an employer must also be remanded to the Board for further consideration. [9] REVERSED and REMANDED.