Opinion ID: 2542051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: employment relationship.

Text: Verdon continues to assert that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proving that they had an employment relationship. We disagree. Testifying through an interpreter, the claimant admitted that he never spoke to Abel Verdon. He testified that a distant cousin, Margarito Villa Martinez, hired him as a part-time helper to pick up trash at Verdon's construction site for $50.00 per day during the summer break from school. An individual named Abelardo picked him up for work and told him what to do. The claimant stated that Martinez paid him and the other workers in cash and that he earned $250.00 during the two-week period before his accident occurred. Martinez, the foreman of Verdon's framing crew, testified through the use of an interpreter in November 2006. When asked whether the claimant was an employee of Verdon Construction, he responded, Not really. He explained that the claimant worked part time during vacation and that there no intention for him to work full time because he was a teenager. The claimant was paid around $7.00 to $8.00 per hour and worked about eight hours per day for two or three days per week. Martinez stated that he did not tell Verdon that he hired the claimant because his duties included hiring workers and paying them. He stated that he told Verdon how much money he needed to pay the workers, then Verdon gave him cash and he distributed it to them. When deposed again in March 2008, Martinez testified that the claimant picked up garbage and scrap materials at the construction site and sometimes carried supplies and tools to the carpenters. The work was necessary and would have been performed by Martinez or the carpenters had the claimant not been hired. His hourly rate was lower than the carpenters' and made it more economical to use him for the work. Verdon's brief to the ALJ denied the existence of an employment relationship with the claimant. Noting that they had never met or spoken, Verdon claimed to have had no knowledge of the claimant's presence at the worksite. Verdon denied paying him for any services performed, pointing to the absence of any documentation to that effect as well as to the evidence that Martinez was the claimant's cousin, paid him in cash, and stated that he was not really an employee. The ALJ analyzed the evidence of an employment relationship emphasizing the four primary Ratliff v. Redmon [6] factors as set forth in Chambers v. Wooten's IGA Foodliner. [7] The ALJ determined that an employment relationship existed based on findings that the claimant's work as a site maintenance person was within the scope of Verdon's business constructing homes; that Verdon controlled the work being performed; and that the work did not require any particular skill. Noting that the three objective factors favored an employment relationship and that objective factors should prevail when the intent of the parties could not be ascertained, the ALJ determined that the claimant was Verdon's employee. KRS 342.285 designates the ALJ as the finder of fact in workers' compensation cases. It permits an appeal to the Board but provides that the ALJ's decision is conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact and, together with KRS 342.290, prohibits the Board or a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the ALJ's as to the weight of evidence on questions of fact. KRS 342.285 gives the ALJ the sole discretion to determine the quality, character, and substance of evidence. [8] As fact-finder, an ALJ may reject any testimony and believe or disbelieve various parts of the evidence, regardless of whether it comes from the same witness or the same party's total proof. [9] KRS 342.285(2) and KRS 342.290 limit administrative and judicial review of an ALJ's decision to determining whether the ALJ acted without or in excess of his powers; [10] whether the decision was procured by fraud; [11] or whether the decision was erroneous as a matter of law. [12] Legal errors would include whether the ALJ misapplied Chapter 342 to the facts; made a clearly erroneous finding of fact; rendered an arbitrary or capricious decision; or committed an abuse of discretion. A party who appeals a finding that favors the party with the burden of proof must show that no substantial evidence supported the finding, i.e., that the finding was unreasonable under the evidence. [13] Evidence that would have supported but not compelled a different decision is an inadequate basis for reversal on appeal. [14] The finding that an employment relationship existed between the claimant and Verdon was properly affirmed. It was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.