## Facts

- Michael Kertesz, a sheetrock/drywall worker who also took independent jobs through his own unincorporated operation, was injured on November 6, 1990 after falling while installing sheetrock at a townhouse job site in Verona, New Jersey.
- Barry L. Korsh, a contractor, directed Kertesz to the site to finish sheetrock work and agreed to pay him $120 per day.
- Kertesz was told to bring his own truck and tools; his truck had no business insignia.
- Kertesz testified he performed work for Korsh about three to four times per month, and he accepted the work because his own business was slow.
- Another drywall worker, Robert Pastor, went to the site with Kertesz; Pastor testified Korsh told him to call Kertesz and go finish the job and that Korsh was “my employer.”
- Kertesz testified (through an interpreter) that Pastor acted as the foreman and told him what to do at the job site.
- Korsh paid Pastor and Kertesz separately by personal checks.
- Kertesz carried a workers’ compensation insurance policy listing himself individually as the insured.

## Issues

1. Whether Kertesz was Korsh’s employee, rather than an independent contractor, at the time of injury for purposes of coverage under New Jersey workers’ compensation law.
2. Whether the compensation judge erred by dismissing the claim based on a finding of no employment relationship.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the workers’ compensation claim.
- The court held Kertesz was an employee of Korsh at the time of the accident.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the existence of an employment relationship.

## Legal Principles

- Employee status in New Jersey workers’ compensation cases is evaluated under the right-to-control test (right to control the means and manner of the work) and the relative nature of the work test (integration of the work into the putative employer’s business and the worker’s economic dependence).
- Supervision and direction may be shown through an on-site foreman acting for the contractor, supporting a finding of employer control.
- Performing work that is a regular and essential part of the contractor’s business weighs in favor of employee classification under the relative nature of the work test.
- Factors such as supplying one’s own tools and vehicle, intermittent engagements, and carrying separate insurance are relevant but not determinative; the inquiry turns on the totality of circumstances.
- The Workers’ Compensation Act is construed liberally to provide coverage; close cases generally are resolved in favor of employee status.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division concluded that Korsh, directly and through a foreman, exercised sufficient control over Kertesz’s work and that the sheetrock work was integral to Korsh’s contracting business, so Kertesz was an employee entitled to pursue workers’ compensation benefits, requiring reversal of the dismissal and remand.


Kertesz v. Korsh, 296 N.J. Super. 146, 686 A.2d 368 (App. Div. 1996)