## Facts

- John Hall and his wife owned and operated Hall Sales Company, a hardware, machinery, and farm-equipment sales and service business in Indiana.
- Hall bought a lot with a dwelling house (and an outbuilding) for his own residence and for no business purpose.
- The house lacked a bathroom and modern kitchen facilities and needed repairs; the planned work included modernization and structural changes needed to install an upstairs bathroom.
- In early July 1949, Hall hired Sandburn, a carpenter, to perform carpentry work on the residence; plumbing and electrical work were excluded.
- Sandburn began work three or four days after being hired and worked steadily, generally starting and stopping at consistent times each day, except when materials were unavailable.
- Sandburn had no other employment while working on Hall’s residence.
- On July 25, 1949, while plastering a ceiling at the residence, plaster fell into Sandburn’s left eye, causing loss of industrial vision.
- After the injury, other workers finished the remodeling project, which was completed about six to eight weeks after it began.
- Sandburn applied for workmen’s compensation benefits.
- The Indiana Industrial Board denied benefits, finding that on the injury date Sandburn was performing services that were both casual and not in the usual course of the employers’ regular business.
- Sandburn appealed the Industrial Board’s award to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether there was evidence to support the Industrial Board’s finding that Sandburn’s work on Hall’s private residence was “casual” employment under the Indiana Workmen’s Compensation Act.
2. Whether there was evidence to support the Industrial Board’s finding that Sandburn’s work was not in the usual course of Hall’s regular business, so the claim fell outside the Act’s coverage.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the Industrial Board’s award that Sandburn take nothing.
- The court held that the record contained evidence from which the Board could find Sandburn’s employment was casual, even though he worked steady hours for several weeks on the project.
- The court also held that the Board could find the work was not in the course of Hall’s regular business because Hall’s business was hardware and farm-equipment sales and service, and the remodeling was on Hall’s personal residence and unrelated to that enterprise.
- Applying the limited standard of review, the court declined to reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility and viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing parties before the Board.

## Legal Principles

- The employer has the burden to show that a claimant falls within the “casual employment” exclusion.
- Whether work is “casual” is commonly a fact question for the Industrial Board, based on the character of the job and the circumstances of the hiring, not solely on the number of days worked.
- Workers’ compensation coverage does not extend to services that are both (a) casual and (b) not in the usual course of the employer’s regular business, as found by the Industrial Board and supported by evidence.
- “Regular business” refers to the employer’s ongoing commercial enterprise; work performed solely to repair or modernize the employer’s private residence can be found outside that business.
- On appeal from an Industrial Board award, the reviewing court considers the evidence most favorable to the party who prevailed before the Board and will affirm if there is competent evidence supporting the Board’s findings.

## Conclusion

Sandburn was injured while doing carpentry and plastering as part of a one-time remodeling project on Hall’s private residence, a project unrelated to Hall’s hardware and farm-equipment business; because the Industrial Board found the job was casual and outside Hall’s regular business, and there was evidence supporting those findings, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits.


Sandburn v. Hall, 96 N.E.2d 912 (1951)