## Facts

- Transportation General, Inc., doing business as Metro Taxi, operated taxicabs through owner-operator and lease arrangements.
- Allen Hanson drove a Metro cab under Metro’s standard owner-operator agreement beginning in 1987.
- Under the agreement, Metro held legal title to the cab while Hanson retained beneficial ownership; legal title would transfer to Hanson upon termination of the relationship.
- Hanson paid weekly stand dues ($425) covering items including licensing certificate, taxes, and insurance, and paid an additional weekly amount ($100) to use a second driver.
- Hanson was responsible for his public service license and for repairs, maintenance, and operating expenses.
- Hanson set his own hours and selected his own routes; Metro did not direct the details of his daily driving.
- Hanson could hire a second driver and also worked a separate job at a hospital.
- On April 16, 1990, Hanson was murdered while operating the taxicab.
- Hanson’s surviving spouse sought workers’ compensation survivor benefits, asserting Hanson was Metro’s employee.
- A workers’ compensation commissioner found Hanson was an independent contractor; the Compensation Review Board and Appellate Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a taxicab owner-operator working under Metro’s owner-operator agreement was an “employee” entitled to benefits under the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act.
2. Whether Connecticut should replace the common-law right-to-control test with a “relative nature of the work” test for employee status in workers’ compensation cases.
3. Whether the commissioner committed reversible error in excluding evidence offered by the claimant.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment upholding dismissal of the claim.
- The court declined to adopt the “relative nature of the work” test and reaffirmed the common-law right-to-control test.
- Applying the right-to-control test, the court held that Hanson was an independent contractor, not Metro’s employee, at the time of his death.
- The court rejected the evidentiary challenge, concluding the commissioner’s ruling did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation benefits are available only to persons who are “employees” at the time of injury under the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act.
- The governing standard for employee status is the common-law “right to control” test: the key question is whether the alleged employer has the right to control the means and methods of the work, not merely the result.
- Indicators supporting independent-contractor status include control over hours and routes, responsibility for licensing and operating expenses, the ability to hire substitutes or additional drivers, and compensation derived directly from customers rather than wages paid by the company.
- Courts generally defer to a workers’ compensation commissioner’s factual findings if supported by evidence; appellate review does not reweigh competing inferences.
- Major changes to the statutory reach of workers’ compensation coverage are primarily for legislative action rather than judicial revision.

## Conclusion

The court held that a taxi driver operating as an owner-operator under Metro’s agreement was an independent contractor because Metro lacked the right to control the manner and means of his work, and it refused to adopt a broader alternative test for employment status, leaving such policy change to the legislature.


Hanson v. Transportation Gen., Inc., 245 Conn. 613, 716 A.2d 857 (Conn. 1998)