CASE NO. 392 CRD-2-85Workers’ Compensation Commission
MARCH 11, 1987
The claimant was represented by William N. Sebastian, Esq., Horwitz, Maruzo, Lucas Driscoll.
The respondent was represented by Frank A. Manfredi, Esq., Cotter Greenfield Manfredi, P.C.
The Second Injury and Compensation Assurance Fund did not appear or file a brief.
This Petition for Review from the March 5, 1985 Finding and Award of the Second District Commissioner was considered January 30, 1987 on the basis of submitted briefs, by a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and A. Thomas White, Jr.
ORDER
The matter is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the accompanying opinion.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.
Claimant sustained a fractured ankle injury backing a tractor from a truck, over some planks. Respondent has appealed the March 5, 1985 Finding and Award of granting benefits. The issue is whether Claimant was in the course of his employment at the time of the injury.
Claimant alleged he worked for the respondent as the respondent’s wife called claimant to finish a job he had previously worked on. The respondent could not make the call himself as he was in jail at the time.
Respondent argued that the Commissioner’s decision contained no factual findings which would justify a conclusion that respondent’s wife had any authority, express or implied, in her husband’s business affairs. We agree. A Finding and Award “`should contain all the subordinate facts which are pertinent to the inquiry and the conclusions of the Commissioner therefrom . . . . If a Finding does not conform to these requirements. . . [then] this court is [not] in a position to decide whether the award was correct. . . .'” McQuade v. Ashford, 130 Conn. 478, 482 (1944) quoting Rossi v. Jackson Co., 117 Conn. 603, 605 (1933).
In the instant matter, the Commissioner failed to find whether the respondent’s wife had authority to hire or, as alleged, re-hire the claimant. Marriage itself does not prove an agency relationship. Botticello v. Stefanovicz, 177 Conn. 22, 26 (1979) citing Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities v. Veneri, 157 Conn. 20, 24 (1968). Therefore, there must be further action at the district level to determine if there existed facts which would have cloaked respondent’s wife with either express or apparent authority to employ the claimant. As it is reasonable that claimant may proffer evidence to show respondent’s wife was such an agent cloaked with authority, we remand this matter for additional proceedings, Dombrowski v. Fafnir Bearing Co., 148 Conn. 87, 93 (1961).
Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and A. Thomas White, Jr. concur.