Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kelly v. Alarmtec Inc.

Decided: June 26, 1978.

VICTOR KELLY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
ALARMTEC, INC., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT



On appeal from the Division of Workers' Compensation.

Michels, Pressler and Bilder.

Per Curiam

Respondent-employer appeals from a judgment of the Division of Workers' Compensation awarding petitioner-employee compensation benefits for temporary and permanent disability for total loss of vision and enucleation of the right eye as the result of a work-related accident. The judge of compensation found that petitioner was an employee of respondent and not an independent contractor, and accordingly held respondent liable for 100% loss of vision and enucleation of the right eye. The judge of compensation found that the respondent was not entitled to credit for moneys paid to petitioner for a prior non-work-related injury to that eye.

We have examined the entire record, having in mind the "control test" and the "relative nature of the work test," and are satisfied that an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent.

Two basic tests have been employed by our courts in resolving whether an injured petitioner is an "employee" entitled to compensation or an "independent contractor" not so entitled. Generally, where a respondent has the right to exercise control over the means and methods by which the petitioner is to accomplish his work, an employer-employee relationship will be found. See Tofani v. Lo Biondo Brothers Motor Express, Inc. , 83 N.J. Super. 480, 486-487 (App. Div. 1964), aff'd o.b. 43 N.J. 494 (1964). Where the "relative nature of the work" test is applied, the court will inquire into whether the work done by the petitioner was an integral part of the regular business of the respondent. If such is found then the court will determine that an employment relationship existed. See the dissenting opinion in Marcus v. Eastern Agricultural Assn, Inc. , 58 N.J. Super. 584, 596 (App. Div. 1959) which the Supreme Court adopted in 32 N.J. 460 (1960). Cf. Caicco v. Toto Brothers, Inc. , 62 N.J. 305 (1973). [ Rossnagle v. Capra and Shell Oil Co. , 127 N.J. Super. 507, 517 (App. Div. 1973), aff'd o.b. 64 N.J. 549 (1974)]

See also, Smith v. E.T.L. Enterprises , 155 N.J. Super. 343, 349-353 (App. Div. 1978).

The determination by the judge of compensation that petitioner was an employee of respondent, not an independent contractor, could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence in the record as a whole. De Angelo v. Alsan Masons, Inc. , 122 N.J. Super. 88, 89-90 (App. Div.), aff'd o.b. 62 N.J. 581 (1973); Close v. Kordulak Bros. , 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965).

Furthermore, we are satisfied that there is sufficient credible evidence in the record to reasonably warrant the judge of compensation's findings and conclusions that petitioner (1) had some useful vision in his right eye prior to the present accident; (2) his vision was lost as a result of the accident and (3) he is entitled to compensation benefits for total loss of vision and enucleation of the right eye. See N.J.S.A. 34:15-12(c)(16) and N.J.S.A. 34:15-12(c)(17).

We find no merit in respondent's claim that since the evidence established that petitioner was industrially blind prior to the present work-related accident there is no legal

basis upon which respondent can be held liable for petitioner's alleged loss of vision under N.J.S.A. 34:15-12(c)(16). See Burrock v. Tung Sol Lamp Works, Inc. , 30 N.J. Super. 456, 466 (Cty. Ct. 1954), wherein Judge Gaulkin rejected a similar argument, stating:

In my opinion subdivision (s) of R.S. 34:15-12 means loss of the petitioner's vision, and not loss of vision of a perfect eye. In the case at bar, the petitioner did have some useful vision of his right eye, and that useful vision he lost completely. I therefore agree with the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.