JULY 2008 UPDATES July 7, 2008 As gas prices rise and the economy continues to fluctuate, we are seeing a vast number of cases where employers are attempting to avoid responsibility by designating their “employees” and workers as independent contractors. In Connecticut Appellate Court, in the case of Chute v. Mobil Shipping and Transportation Co 32 Conn. App. 16 (1993) has specifically found that: “the fundamental distinction between an employee and an independent contractor depends upon the existence or non-existence of the right to control the means and methods of work. For purposes of workers’ compensation, an independent contractor is defined as one, who in exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece or work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of his employer, except as to the result of the work.” Rising costs of insurance coverage has led employers to try and circumvent the necessity of workers compensation insurance by designating their employees as independent contractors. The obvious disadvantage to the employer is to save on the cost of premiums and even if there is coverage, many times the employers are limiting the number of employees listed and coverage supplied. You should be very careful when relationships are maintained or claimed as a defense to a compensation claim that the criteria outlined in Chute is maintained.