- 53 -
Here, we find nothing in the record to persuade us that
MedChem P.R. had the right to direct or control any of the
purported MedChem P.R. employees in their performance of Avitene-
related services. Although petitioners invite us to find that
MedChem P.R. directed and controlled the Avitene-related work of
these individuals by virtue of the fact that they interacted with
one or more individuals who served concurrently as an officer
and/or director of MedChem P.R. and MedChem U.S.A., the record
indicates to the contrary. All of the individuals who worked on
an Avitene matter were directed and controlled by either Alcon
P.R. or MedChem U.S.A. In fact, MedChem P.R. was expressly
prohibited by the processing agreement from taking a managerial
role in the manufacturing process. Moreover, MedChem P.R. never
even directed or controlled any of its officers, except possibly
Mr. Perez up until July 1, 1990. We also believe it most telling
that MedChem P.R. did not hold any of these individuals out or
report them as employees until the commencement of this
litigation, that each of these individuals was hired and directly
paid by MedChem U.S.A. or Alcon P.R., that MedChem P.R. never
paid employment taxes as to these individuals, that MedChem P.R.
never provided these individuals with workers’ compensation
insurance or employee benefits, and that all of these individuals
worked at the Alcon P.R. and MedChem U.S.A. facilities.
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011