Jesse Wulf v. Tradesman International, Inc.
Decision date: September 28, 2022Injury #18-11312011 pages
Summary
The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision denying workers' compensation benefits in this case. Missouri was determined to lack jurisdiction over the claim, resulting in no compensation being awarded.
Archive Notice
This archive contains published Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission workers' compensation decisions reproduced for research convenience. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Related Legal Help
Practical guidance for this decision
Third-Party Injury Check
This workers' comp decision may point to a separate injury claim.
- A driver, contractor, property owner, or equipment company may share fault.
- The injury involved a vehicle, unsafe premises, defective equipment, or a non-employer vendor.
- A serious injury or death may need both benefits review and civil-claim analysis.
Caption
FINAL AWARD DENYING COMPENSATION
(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)
**Injury No. 18-113120**
**Employee:** Jesse Wulf
**Employer:** Tradesman International, Inc.
**Insurer:** New Hampshire Insurance Company
The above-entitled workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by § 287.480 RSMo. Having reviewed the evidence and considered the whole record, the Commission finds that the award of the administrative law judge is supported by competent and substantial evidence and was made in accordance with the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law. Pursuant to § 286.090 RSMo, the Commission affirms the award and decision of the administrative law judge dated December 1, 2021, and awards no compensation in the above-captioned case.
The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Mark, S. Siedlik, issued December 1, 2021, is attached and incorporated by this reference.
Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this 28th day of September 2022.
**LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION**
**Roderick Campbell, Chairman**
**Shalonn K. Curls, Member**
**VACANT Member**
**Attest:**
**Shelah S. Legge, Secretary**
DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
3315 WEST TRUMAN BLVD, P.O. BOX 58 JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65102 PHONE: (800) 775-2667
www.labor.mo.gov/DWC
DECEMBER 01, 2021
18-113120
Scan Copy
| 142 | Injury No : 18-113120 |
| Injury Date : 11-14-2018 | |
| Insurance No. : |
*Employee : JESSE WULF* 13318418 0 11419 E 14TH ST S INDEPENDENCE, MO 64052-3809 *Employee Attorney: TIMOTHY E POWER* SANTA FE BUILDING 8000 FOSTER OVERLAND PARK, KS 66204-3699 *18-113120* *13318419 7 TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL* 9760 SHEPARD RD MARCEDONIA, OH 44056 *Insurer : NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO* c/o SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SER PO BOX 14155 LEXINGTON, KY 40512-4155 *Insurer Attorney: BRIAN J FOWLER* 1100 MAIN ST STE 2000 KANSAS CITY, MO 64105-2119 *Insurer : NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO* *Denotes that the Division sent a copy of the Award by electronic mail to the email address that the party provided. The Certificate of Service for this document is maintained in the Division's records.
Enclosed is a copy of the Award on Hearing made in the above case.
Under the provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, an Application for Review of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge may be made to the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission within twenty (20) days of the above date. If you wish to request a review by the Commission, application may be made by completing an Application for Review Form (MOIC-2567). The Application for Review should be sent directly to the Commission at the following address:
Labor and Industrial Relations Commission PO Box 599 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0599
If an Application for Review (MOIC-2567) is not postmarked or received within twenty (20) days of the above date, the enclosed award becomes final and no appeal may be made to the Commission or to the courts.
Please reference the above Injury Number in any correspondence with the Division or Commission.
DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Continued
AWARD ON HEARING HLP
Please visit our website at www.labor.mo.gov/DWC
FINAL AWARD
Employee: Jesse Wulf
Injury No.: 18-113120
Dependents: N/A
Employer: Tradesmen International, Inc.
Insurer: New Hampshire Insurance Co.
Additional Party: N/A
Hearing Date: August 26, 2021
Checked by: MSS/drl
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW
- Are any benefits awarded herein? No. Missouri does not have jurisdiction over this claim.
- Was the alleged injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? Missouri does not have jurisdiction.
- Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? Not under Missouri law.
- Date of alleged accident or onset of occupational disease: November 14, 2018
- State location where alleged accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: Marietta, Georgia
- Was above employee in employ of above employer at time of alleged accident or occupational disease? Yes
- Did employer receive proper notice? Yes
- Did alleged accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? Yes, but Missouri does not have jurisdiction.
- Was claim for compensation filed within time required by law? Yes
- Was employer insured? New Hampshire Insurance Company
- Describe work employee was allegedly doing and how alleged accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: Claimant was working from a ladder when a brace gave out. Claimant sustained initial injury to his left upper extremity.
- Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No
Date of death? N/A
- Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: Left upper extremity and now neck, low back claim
| Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Employee: Jesse Wulf | Injury No.: 18-113120 |
| 14. Nature and extent of any permanent disability? N/A | |
| 15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: None under the Missouri claim. Employer/Insurer have been paying benefits under the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act. Benefits are ongoing pursuant to the Kansas Claim. | |
| 16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? Yes, Employer/Insurer has paid the medical benefits under the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act. | |
| 17. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? 0 | |
| 18. Employee’s average weekly wages: $1,284.61 | |
| 19. Weekly compensation rate: Benefits are being paid at the maximum rate in Kansas, 645.00. On the alleged claim for Missouri benefits, the rate is 856.44 for any T.T.D. and $496.38 for any permanent partial disability. | |
| 20. Method wage computation: By agreement | |
| COMPENSATION PAYABLE | |
| 21. Amount of compensable payable: | $0.00 |
| Medical paid: | $0.00 |
| Unpaid medical expenses: | $0.00 |
| Temporary total disability (or temporary partial disability) | $0.00 |
| Unpaid temporary total disability from Employer | $0.00 |
| Permanent total disability benefits from Employer | $0.00 |
| 22. Second Injury Fund liability: N/A | $0.00 |
| 0 weeks of permanent partial disability from Second Injury Fund | $0.00 |
| Uninsured medical/death benefits | $0.00 |
| Total: | $0.00 |
Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Employee: Jesse Wulf
Employee: Jesse Wulf
Dependents: N/A
Employer: Tradesmen International, Inc.
Insurer: New Hampshire Insurance Co.
Additional Party: N/A
Hearing Date: August 26, 2021
Checked by: MSS/drl
FINDINGS OF FACT and RULINGS OF LAW
The parties appeared for trial of this claim on August 26, 2021. The sole issue to be addressed is the claim that the Missouri Division of Workers' Compensation has jurisdiction over this claim. The Employer/Insurer dispute and deny that Missouri has jurisdiction.
The Employer/Insurer admit that the Kansas Division of Workers' Compensation has jurisdiction over this claim and admit Claimant sustained a compensable injury. Benefits were immediately started under the Kansas Workers' Compensation Act and the Claimant has been receiving $645.00 per week, the maximum Kansas rate for T.T.D. The Employer/Insurer have paid medical benefits and continued to pay medical benefits for treatment Claimant is receiving, again, under the Kansas Workers' Compensation Act. Claimant is alleging Missouri jurisdiction so he can claim a higher compensation rate for his temporary total disability. The only issue for the Court at this hearing is, does the Missouri Division of Workers' Compensation have jurisdiction. The Court did question previously if this type of issue meets the requirement of a "Hardship Hearing" but the Court did allow Claimant to proceed with the hearing.
Claimant testified on his own behalf. He originally applied for employment with Tradesmen International (hereafter "Tradesmen") in July or August 2013. He filled out an application online for employment. He was at a job center in Leavenworth, Kansas. Claimant was living in Leavenworth, Kansas at that time.
Following his completion of the online application, he was invited to the Tradesmen office located in Kansas City, Kansas for an interview. This was the one and only time he ever interviewed for employment with Tradesmen.
Claimant did complete an employment application, the application dated August 12, 2013. (Employer/Insurer's Exhibit 1). During the interview at the Tradesmen's office in Kansas City, Kansas he was offered employment which he accepted. He clearly entered into a Kansas contract of employment.
Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Employee: Jesse Wulf
Injury No.: 18-113120
Tradesmen supplies skilled workers, such as Claimant, for its clients. Tradesmen would be considered a specialized manpower employment company.
Once he was hired, Claimant worked at a number of projects for Tradesmen. Employer/Insurer's Exhibit F references his dates worked and compensation received while working for Tradesmen.
Claimant discussed how he obtained his job assignments. He would receive a telephone call, usually at night, from a representative advising as to the next day job assignment. The call was normally followed by a text to his phone with the location of the project, directions to the site and other information he would need. At times, there was not always work available. Some projects would run longer than a day or even several weeks.
Employer/Insurer's Exhibit F reflects Claimant worked fairly continuously from 2013 until May of 2014. There was then a break in employment until he returned for an assignment July 13, 2014. (Page 4 of Exhibit F) When he returned, Claimant did not have to complete a new job application or re-interview for the position. He simply received a telephone call just as he had for previous assignments and was advised that there was a job available for him. Claimant worked most of the remainder of 2014 and worked until May 24, 2015. Once again, there was a break in his employment and he was not called back with a new assignment until on or about November 15, 2015. Similar to prior breaks in his employment, Claimant admitted he did not have to reapply for employment or go through another interview process. He was still considered an employee of Tradesmen when he took his next job assignment in November of 2015.
Testimony from Claimant, as well as from Employer witness, Mike Wolf, confirmed that Claimant was a very skilled Carpenter and was well liked by clients of Tradesmen. In fact, often times clients would specifically request the services of Claimant.
Once Claimant took on new assignments in 2015, he worked until April 2016. At that time, he went back temporarily to a construction company, Harmon Construction. The work at Harmon "slowed down" and Claimant was advised that Harmon had little projects that would be available in the Fall and Winter of 2017.
In September of 2017, he received another telephone call from Mike Wolf. He knew it was Mike because his cell phone showed the name of "Mike Wolf" and he knew that Mike was calling reference a work project that would be available through Tradesmen. Mike called him on his cell phone. Mike explained that there was a project available in Overland Park, Kansas if Claimant wanted to show up for work. Claimant said he would report for the assignment in Overland Park, Kansas. Later that day, he received the usual text message from Mike with details on the location of the project and the Supervisor he would report to once he arrived at the site.
This was a very brief phone call with Mr. Wolf. There was no discussion of employment benefits. Claimant admitted there was no need to discuss benefits. There was no discussion of an hourly rate for Claimant. He knew from his last project at Tradesmen that he
Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Employee: Jesse Wulf
Injury No.: 18-113120
Full decision text continues in the plain-text archive copy.