Matter of the Claim of Lee Trickey v Black River Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., et al.; Workers' Compensation Board
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether a construction worker injured while installing roof trusses was an employee or an independent contractor under the Construction Industry Fair Play Act, Labor Law § 861-c [statutory presumption that a person performing services for a construction contractor is an employee unless the ABC test is met or the person qualifies as a separate business entity].
The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ruling that claimant was Black River's employee, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy.
The Board's decision finding an employer-employee relationship without sufficient findings under the ABC test.
The Board did not make adequate findings on the ABC test—particularly on who directed and controlled the truss installation—so its determination was not supported by substantial evidence.
Background
In June 2020, on his first day at a construction site, claimant Lee Trickey was installing roof trusses on a pole barn owned by Black River Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. when the trusses collapsed, causing a 40-foot fall and severe injuries. Claimant filed a personal injury action in Supreme Court. Black River's workers' compensation carrier asked the Workers' Compensation Board to establish a claim and to deem claimant an employee, invoking workers' compensation exclusivity. Claimant filed a negative C-3, asserting independent contractor status and declining workers' compensation benefits. After a hearing and deposition submissions, the WCLJ found claimant to be an employee based on the Construction Industry Fair Play Act presumption (Labor Law § 861-c), and the Board affirmed.
Lower Court Decision
Relying on the statutory presumption, the WCLJ and the Board found claimant did not meet the 12-factor 'separate business entity' criteria and concluded he was an employee. The Board characterized Black River as acting as a general contractor on the pole barn (outside its usual heating/plumbing business) and noted claimant was sought out for truss installation, but it did not resolve conflicting testimony about who actually directed and controlled the truss work.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed without costs and remitted, holding the Board failed to make sufficient findings under the three-part ABC test, particularly the control-and-direction prong. While the Board's findings appeared to satisfy the second and third prongs (work outside Black River's usual business; claimant customarily engaged in similar work), unresolved conflicts over who controlled the truss installation rendered the decision unsupported by substantial evidence.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that, under the Construction Industry Fair Play Act, the Workers' Compensation Board must explicitly analyze and make findings on each prong of the ABC test where a claimant contests employee status, even if the claimant does not qualify as a separate business entity. Failure to resolve factual disputes—especially about control—will result in reversal and remittal for proper findings, which can determine whether workers' compensation exclusivity applies to bar a tort suit.
In construction worker status disputes, the Board must make clear, evidence-based findings on all ABC test prongs—particularly control—or its employee classification will not withstand substantial-evidence review.