Durand v. City of Woonsocket, 85-573-M
| Decision Date | 17 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-573-M,85-573-M |
| Citation | 537 A.2d 129 |
| Parties | Andre N. DURAND v. CITY OF WOONSOCKET. P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This petition comes before us on certiorari to review a decree of the Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) denying benefits to Andre Durand (petitioner). The trial commissioner ruled that the petitioner, who sustained back injuries while participating in a work-fare program administered by the city of Woonsocket, was not an "employee" within the meaning of G.L. 1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-29-2. He concluded that the petitioner failed to establish a contract for hire and that the relationship between the petitioner and the city was not voluntary. The Appellate Commission affirmed the decision of the trial commissioner. We agree.
The petitioner filed an original petition seeking compensation benefits for a back injury allegedly sustained while lifting a shovel full of dirt when working under the direction of the Woonsocket Park and Recreation Department. A chronology of petitioner's work pattern as gleaned from the record indicates that he originally worked for the city in March 1979 in a public work-incentive program (WIN) jointly funded by the state and the federal governments. The petitioner testified that when funding provided through WIN was exhausted approximately eight months later, he was laid off.
Thereafter petitioner applied for general public assistance (GPA), and he was approved for assistance on the condition that he participate in a "work-fare" program. Participation in the work-fare program is a requisite predicate to receiving public funds pursuant to G.L. 1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 40-6.1-2, as enacted by P.L. 1979, ch. 410, art. 4, § 1, which provides in part:
Ms. Joan Carbone, director of the city welfare department, testified regarding the various social programs relevant to the case. She could not comment on petitioner's case specifically because of the confidentiality of his records. She stated that applicants for GPA, if employable, are required to participate in a work-fare program. Ms. Carbone explained that an individual who is the head of a household and capable of being employed is required to participate in a work-fare program and, depending on the number of hours worked on a weekly basis, has a grant of seventy-five cents per hour added to the GPA. By mandate, the city's role is to administer the program. This includes monitoring hours worked and paying the recipients, after which the state reimburses the city on a monthly basis. Ms. Carbone testified that individuals who refused to participate would be removed from public assistance rolls. However, she emphasized, the dependents continue to be financially protected by a different public-assistance program. In addition, responsibility for health-care expenses incurred by recipients of public assistance is assumed by the state medical-assistance program.
The trial commissioner stated that the fundamental issue was whether petitioner was an employee of the city of Woonsocket within the definition of "employee" as set forth in § 28-29-2 of the Workers' Compensation Act. The commissioner acknowledged that § 28-33-1 provides coverage to employees who sustain personal injuries arising out of and in the course of their employment. Section 28-29-2 defines the term "employee" as follows:
"(b) The word 'employee' means any person who has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhode Island Council 94, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State
...are lacking. Id. Ultimately an inmate has no choice in accepting or rejecting the labor relationship. Id.; see also Durand v. City of Woonsocket, 537 A.2d 129 (R.I.1988) (a participant in a state-mandated work-fare program is not an employee within the meaning of the WCA); accord Closson v.......
-
Cera v. A.W. Chesterton Co.
...and the employer exercises "control and superintendence" over the employee during working hours. See id; Deus, 820 A.2d at 976; Durand, 537 A.2d at 130. evidence demonstrates that Cera and Defendant entered into an explicit "contract for hire" in Rhode Island during the 1993 and 1994 summer......
-
Walls v. North Mississippi Medical Center & U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co.
...215, 374 S.E.2d 277, 279-80 (1988); Courchene v. Delaney Distributors, Inc., 421 N.W.2d 811, 812, fn. 2 (N.D.1988); Durand v. City of Woonsocket, 537 A.2d 129, 130 (R.I.1988); McCreery v. Covenant Presbyterian Church, 299 S.C. 218, 383 S.E.2d 264, 266-67 (1989).3 For a rather voluminous dis......
-
1998 -NMCA- 9, State v. Dartez
...was compelled to work in order to receive AFDC benefits for his family. ¶15 The Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Durand v. City of Woonsocket, 537 A.2d 129 (R.I.1988), reviewed a similar question regarding whether work was voluntary. In Durand the Court held that a participant in a state-ma......