## Facts

- Angel Samaoya worked as a house painter for Marino’s Painting.
- On June 30, 2003, while painting at a residential renovation project, Samaoya fell from a ladder and was injured.
- The property was owned by New England Realty Enterprises, LLC (NERE).
- Jeffrey Farnham, acting for NERE, hired Marino’s Painting to perform painting work at the premises.
- William Gallagher owned Gallagher Construction, which was listed as the general contractor for the project on town records.
- Gallagher was regularly present at the jobsite, instructed workers on painting, and made payments to Marino’s Painting.
- Samaoya sought workers’ compensation benefits; the commissioner found Marino’s Painting either was hired by Gallagher Construction or by NERE through Farnham, and that Gallagher or Farnham, or both, controlled the premises.

## Issues

1. Whether Gallagher and Gallagher Construction were “principal employers” under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-291 and therefore liable for workers’ compensation benefits not paid by Marino’s Painting.
2. Whether the commissioner’s alternative findings about who hired Marino’s Painting and who controlled the premises were void for uncertainty.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Review Board, which had affirmed the commissioner’s award.
- The court held there was evidence supporting a principal employer–contractor relationship involving Gallagher/Gallagher Construction and Marino’s Painting.
- The court held the painting work was a part or process in the trade or business of the contractor on the renovation project.
- The court held the premises-control element was satisfied, including where control was shared or overlapping between Gallagher and Farnham.
- The court rejected the claim that the findings were void for uncertainty; the alternative phrasing did not defeat the statutory elements when the findings were read as a whole.

## Legal Principles

- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-291 imposes workers’ compensation liability on a principal employer when (1) a principal employer–contractor relationship exists, (2) the contracted work is a part or process in the principal employer’s trade or business, and (3) the work is performed on premises under the principal employer’s control.
- In workers’ compensation appeals, factual findings and reasonable inferences drawn by the commissioner are reviewed deferentially and are upheld if supported by evidence.
- Findings phrased in the alternative are not void for uncertainty if, taken together, they sufficiently establish the statutory elements for liability.
- The principal-employer statute is remedial and is construed broadly to ensure compensation coverage where an injured worker’s direct employer does not pay benefits.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Court upheld the determination that Gallagher and Gallagher Construction were principal employers under § 31-291 and could be held responsible for compensation benefits unpaid by the injured painter’s direct employer, and it held that the commissioner’s alternative formulations did not invalidate the award.


Samaoya v. Gallagher, 102 Conn. App. 670, 926 A.2d 1052 (2007)