I represent the carrier, Broadspire, and the employer, Cowberry Crossing Farm, in the above-referenced matter. Please accept this letter as the carrier’s and employer’s trial memorandum on the issue of basic compensability.

It is respectfully submitted, the claimant, Scott White, was not a covered employee under Section 2, Subsection 4 of the Workers’ Compensation Law and that he was not covered under the mandatory Workers’ Compensation rider to the comprehensive Farm Family policy as dictated by insurance law Section 3420.

It is further asserted that the claimant was not a farm worker but even if he was, he would not have been required to be covered under the section of Workers’ Compensation Law Section 3, Group 17. BACKGROUND …show more content…
This also excludes domestic employee performing work for less than forty (40) hours per week. On the day he was injured the claimant was splitting wood, around the farm house, to be used by the family for their personal use over the winter months (See the 06/27/2017 testimony of Richard Harrison at page 14). The claimant’s testimony on this subject is contradictory and incredible. Initially he testified that he did not know what the wood was going to be used for. He testified that there were tenants and rental properties on the farm and then he testified that Mr. Harrison told him that the wood was not going to be used by the family. The claimant went as far as to suggests he couldn’t tell whether a chicken coop or a barn might be a rental property or a dwelling of some sort. It is respectfully submitted, Mr. Harrison’s testimony in this regard is more credible and should be accepted over that testimony of the claimant.

If your Honor considers the claimant a casual employee doing work around a one story owner-occupied dwelling, then he is not an employee within the meaning of the law and is not required to be