Daw's Critical Care Registry, Inc. v. Department of Labor, Employment Sec. Div.

• Decision Date: 23 March 1993
• Docket Number: No. 14580,14580
• Citation: 622 A.2d 518,225 Conn. 99
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DAW'S CRITICAL CARE REGISTRY, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION.

Page 518

622 A.2d 518

225 Conn. 99

DAW'S CRITICAL CARE REGISTRY, INC. v.DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION.

No. 14580.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 10, 1993.

Decided March 23, 1993.

Richard T. Sponzo, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, Atty. Gen., and Charles A. Overend, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee(defendant).

Joseph D. Garrison, with whom was Markus L. Penzel, New Haven, for appellee(plaintiff).

Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BERDON, NORCOTT and KATZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this case concerning contested assessments of unemployment tax, the only issue is whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the plaintiff, Daw's Critical Care Registry, Inc., and the state licensed nurses that it refers to various medical facilities throughout the state.The defendant, the department of labor, employment security division, determined in an administrative ruling that the plaintiff should be characterized as an employer paying taxable wages within the meaning of General Statutes § 31-222(a)(1)(B), ¹ and should, therefore, be assessed unemployment tax.The trial court, however, agreed with the plaintiff that the nurses were not employees within the meaning of the statute, but rather were independent contractors.The trial court, therefore, sustained the plaintiff's appeals challenging the assessments.²The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book§ 4023andGeneral Statutes § 51-199(c).

Our examination of the record on this appeal, and the briefs and arguments of the parties, persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.The parties agree that the test that determines liability for unemployment tax in the circumstances of this case is the "ABC test" contained in § 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii).SeeLatimer v. Administrator, 216 Conn. 237, 246, 579 A.2d 497(1990).In a thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision, the trial court determined that the plaintiff had proven its entitlement to an exclusion from the tax by satisfying each of the three elements of the ABC test and thus proving that it was not an employer.Daw's Critical Care Registry, Inc. v. Department of Labor, 42 Conn.Sup. 376, 622 A.2d 622(1993).Because that memorandum of decision fully states and meets the arguments raised in the present appeals, we adopt the trial court's well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on that issue.It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained.See, e.g., Loeb v. Al-Mor Corporation, 224 Conn. 6, 7, 615 A.2d 149(1992);Bannon v. Wise, 217 Conn. 457, 458-59, 586 A.2d 596(1991);Einbinder v. Board of Tax Review, 217 Conn. 240, 242, 584 A.2d 1188(1991).

The judgment is affirmed.

1General Statutes § 31-222 provides in relevant part: "DEFINITIONS.As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

"(a)(1)'Employment,' subject to the other provisions of this subsection, means:

"(A) Any service, including service in interstate commerce, and service outside the United States, performed under any express or implied contract of hire creating the relationship of employer and employee;

"(B) ... subject to the...