The plaintiff was injured while performing security services at the New Hampshire International Speedway (NHIS) and filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff was an employee of NHIS for purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Generally speaking, the courts construe that statute broadly and construe reasonable doubts in favor of the injured worker. However, in this case, the Court found that the plaintiff was not an employee at the time of his injuries and was not eligible for coverage.
The law defines an “employee” as, in part, “any person in the service of an employer … under any express or implied, oral or written contract of hire….” RSA 281-A:2, VI(a). The Court has found in the past that in order to establish a contract of hire, the claimant must have received or expected to receive a payment of some kind, although it need not be cash wages.
In this case, the plaintiff was a volunteer for Fishin’ For Kids, Inc. (FFK), a nonprofit organization established to raise money for various children’s charities. NHIS had made arrangements with FFK to allow the FFK “volunteers” to provide service at NHIS during a race weekend. In exchange for these services, NHIS agreed to donate $7.00 to FFK for each hour that its “volunteers” spent providing services at the speedway. FFK signed an agreement to this effect with NHIS regarding the confirmed number of “volunteers” who would perform services that weekend.
The plaintiff and others who were volunteering attended a one-hour orientation program. The plaintiff expressed an interest in providing security services, and he was asked to complete and submit a criminal records form (but no other paperwork). He was given a shirt and hat from NHIS identifying him as a security official. He was also granted a discount at the NHIS gift shop and on food at the track’s concession. In addition, at the hearing, his wife testified that he had not expected to be paid a wage for his volunteer services over that weekend.
Based on these facts, the Court found that the plaintiff never expected to receive payment from anyone and that none of the parties intended the charitable donation as “payment” for his service. The Court followed the legal analyses adopted by several other jurisdictions, focusing on the intent of the parties to determine whether a contract of hire was created. Although money changed hands, the plaintiff never expected to be paid for his services. The shirt and hat he was given were required apparel for those performing security services. In addition, there was no evidence that the discounts on souvenirs and food were anything other than gifts, which are not considered payment under a contract of hire unless the parties have that understanding.
Although the Court stated that its opinion was confined to the narrow facts in this case, and that it was not a blanket statement regarding the eligibility of volunteers for workers’ compensation benefits, the opinion may provide useful guidelines for those using volunteer assistance. It should also be noted that RSA 281-A:2 has special definitions of “employee” that relate to volunteer police, fire, ambulance, rescue and emergency management personnel under the Workers’ Compensation Law, and the meaning of “volunteer” may vary for purposes of other laws, such as income tax, wage and hours and tort immunity statutes and regulations.