Yong Kang v. Mullins

420 P.3d 1210 (Alaska 2018) · Supreme Court of Alaska · May 11, 2018 · No. S-16560

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed whether Yong Kang d/b/a Lee’s Massage was Alexander Mullins’s employer under the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act after Mullins was injured while performing major repairs on a building used as Kang’s residence and massage business. The court held that the evidence did not establish that Mullins’s repair work was performed in connection with Lee’s Massage’s business or that Kang, in her capacity as tenant and business operator, was his employer. The court reversed the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission’s decision, including the related default order.

Court
Supreme Court of Alaska
Writing for the Court
Maassen, Justice; Stowers, Chief Justice; Winfree, Justice; Bolger, Justice; Carney, Justice
Jurisdiction
Alaska
Decision date
May 11, 2018
Docket number
S-16560
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission's affirmance of Alaska Workers' Compensation Board decisions determining that Yong Kang d/b/a Lee's Massage was Alexander Mullins's employer under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act and ordering payment of benefits.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court reviews the Commission's decision rather than the Board's. It independently reviews whether substantial evidence supports the Board's factual findings and reviews de novo the legal determination whether the facts amount to employment under the statute.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Yong Kang, d/b/a Lee's Massage v. Alexander Mullins, State of Alaska, Workers' Compensation Benefits Guaranty Fund
Disposition
reversed

Topics

workers compensationadministrative lawappellate procedureconstruction lawstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

workers compensationadministrative lawappellate procedureconstruction lawstatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence established that Yong Kang d/b/a Lee's Massage was Mullins's employer under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act.
  2. Whether the Commission's affirmance of the Board's default order could stand if Lee's Massage was not Mullins's employer.

Holdings

  1. The evidence did not establish that Mullins entered into an employment contract with Lee's Massage or that his major repair work furthered Lee's Massage's business. Because Kang acted as a tenant and consumer of rental services, rather than as a producer of goods or services through the repair project, Lee's Massage was not Mullins's employer under the Act.
  2. The default order must also be reversed because Lee's Massage was not Mullins's employer under the Act.

Key quotations

A tenant generally is a consumer of rental services, not a producer of those services. (slip op. at 13)
But there is no evidence that Lee’s Massage was engaged in the construction or real estate business or that Kang was engaged in any other “profit-making enterprise which ought to bear the costs of injuries” related to the major building repairs to her son’s building. (slip op. at 15)

Factual background

Yong Kang rented a house from her son and operated a massage business there with a partner. She asked neighbor Alexander Mullins to help repair the roof and level the house, agreeing to compensate him with a used pickup truck; after a dispute, she paid him $500 for his work. Mullins injured his wrist during the leveling work and later filed a workers' compensation claim identifying Lee's Massage as his employer. The house served as both Kang's residence and business premises, but Kang did not own it and the record did not show that she or Lee's Massage had a legal obligation to perform the major repairs.

Procedural history

Mullins filed a workers' compensation claim after injuring his wrist while performing major repair work on a house rented by Kang and used partly for Kang's massage business. The Workers' Compensation Board found an employment relationship, determined that Mullins was an employee rather than an independent contractor, and concluded that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed, consolidated the appeals concerning the Board's original and supplemental orders, and partially stayed the orders. Kang appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…