NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THEAPPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISIONSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYAPPELLATE DIVISIONDOCKET NO. A-2714-11T3DANIEL CORDEIRO,Petitioner-Respondent,v.DANNYS CONSTRUCTION,Respondent. Argued September 27, 2012 DecidedDecember 13, 2012Before Judges Koblitz and Accurso.On appeal from New Jersey Department ofLabor and Workforce Development, Division ofWorkers Compensation, Claim Petition No.2010-19161.Stephen V. Gimigliano argued the cause forappellant Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd.(GrahamCurtin,P.A.,attorneys;Mr.Gimigliano and John Maloney, on the briefs).Dennis M. Baptista argued the cause forrespondentDanielCordeiro(Livingston,Siegel, DiMarzio Baptista, L.L.P., and TheBlanco Law Firm, L.L.C., attorneys; Pablo N.Blanco, of counsel and on the brief; Mr.Baptista, on the brief).PER CURIAMSentinel Insurance Company, Ltd.1 (Sentinel) appeals fromtheMarch9,2011orderoftheDivisionofWorkersCompensation.The parties agreed that because petitioner DanielCordeiro is the president and owner of Dannys Construction Co.(Dannys), Sentinel is the only respondent in interest in thisworkerscompensationcase.TheJudgeofCompensationdeterminedthatCordeirossevereinjuries2werecompensableunder the New Jersey Workers Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1to -142 (the Act).Sentinel argues that because Cordeiro wasinjured installing a skylight in his own home, the accident didnot arise out of and in the course of his employment.Afterreviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced onappeal, we affirm.The facts are not in dispute.Dannys is a New Jerseycorporation involved primarily in masonry and concrete work.Itwas formed in 1996 and at the time of the accident employedeight or nine individuals.Cordeiro received a weekly salary1Improperly referred to at trial as Hartford Insurance Company.2The parties do not dispute that Cordeiro suffered a 100%permanent total disability for the residuals of multipletraumatic injuries including post traumatic paraplegia, spinalcord injury, fractured left tib[i]a with deep laceration of theleg, fractured left clavicle, multiple bilateral rib fractures,[and]respiratoryfailuresecondarytospinalcordinjury . . . .His medical bills at the time of the October27, 2011 order for total disability were approximately $961,970.2A-2714-11T3 workingastheon-sitesupervisor.Cordeiropurchasedaninvestment property in Asbury and listed Dannys as the repairand renovation general contractor on the construction permits.In its capacity as general contractor, Dannys hired plumbingand electrical subcontractors and agreed to pay the going ratefor their work.OnthemorningofJune17,2010,CordeiroandtwoofDannys employees reported to a jobsite, where they unexpectedlydiscovered that the concrete work they were there to performcould not be done due to conditions at the worksite.CordeirodecidedtosavethedaybyworkingontheAsburyhouserenovation.One of the workers with Cordeiro had previouslyworked on the Asbury renovation with other Dannys employees,and had been paid by the company for that work.Onthedayoftheaccident,Cordeirodrovetwoofhisworkers, in the company truck, to the Asbury home where Cordeiroand one of his co-workers ascended to the roof to install askylightwhiletheotherworkercleanedupdebris.Whilecutting the roof, Cordeiro accidentally fell through the roofonto the concrete floor below.3A-2714-11T3At trial, the insurance underwriter3 testified that Dannysworkerscompensationinsurancepolicyonlycoveredtheinstallation of concrete slabs for residential homes, althoughshe was unable to point to any wording in the policy delineatingsuch a policy limitation.The unsigned electronic applicationcompleted by the insurance agent indicated that Dannys usedsubcontractors approximately three percent of the time.Theapplication also indicated that the company did not do workhigher than three feet above ground level.Sentinelstipulatedthattheworkerscompensationinsurance policy covered Cordeiro as an employee of Dannys,4 butargued that the accident did not arise out of or in the courseof Cordeiros employment.Sentinel maintains that the insuranceunderwriters testimony regarding Dannys insurance application,coupledwiththetestimonyofCordeiroandhisemployees,demonstrates that Dannys operated as a concrete constructionsubcontractor whose employees did not work more than three feetabove ground level.Sentinel argues that Cordeiros injuriesresultedfromhispersonalactivities[in]hisownhome,rather than during the usual work of the company.3The underwriter identified herself as an employee of TheHartford.4See N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 (allowing self-employed persons to obtaincoverage); see also Henk v. E. Air Taxi, Inc., 91 N.J. Super.317, 319 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 48 N.J. 110 (1966).4A-2714-11T3In Jumpp v City of Ventnor, 177 N.J. 470, 483 (2003), theSupreme Court noted that [e]mployees who are where they aresupposed to be, [and] doing what they are supposed to be doing,are acting within the course of employment . . . . (citationsomitted).Thus an accident, occurring while an employee isperformingataskassignedbytheemployer,iscompensable.SentinelindicatesthatbecauseCordeiro,astheemployer,directed the work athis own home, he can not rely on theholding in Jumpp, to support his argument that the activityordered by him is compensable even if it is outside normal workduties.We agree that Cordeiro, unlike one of Dannys otheremployees, can not rely on his own orders as a supervisor todemonstratethattheworkheperformedwaswithinhisworkduties.We also agree that some of the renovation work done onCordeiros property was beyond the usual scope of work performedby Dannys.5Cordeiro and his employees, however, worked at the Asburyhome on a normal workday, during normal work hours, performingconstruction work for which Dannys had obtained constructionpermits.Dannysactedasalegitimategeneralcontractor,5Dannys employees did pour the concrete floor in the room wherehe was injured.5A-2714-11T3 hiringsubcontractorsinarms-lengthtransactions.Theemployees were paid by Dannys for their work.Our scope of review in a workers compensation case islimited to a determination ofwhether the findings made could reasonablyhave been reached on sufficient credibleevidence present in the record, consideringthe proofs as a whole, with due regard tothe opportunity of the one who heard thewitnesses to judge of their credibility and,in the case of agency review, with dueregard also to the agencys expertise wheresuchexpertiseisapertinentfactor.[Sager v. O.A. Peterson Constr., Co., 182N.J. 156, 164 (2004) (quoting Close v.Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)).]Thus, [d]eference must be accorded the factual findingsandlegaldeterminationsmadebytheJudgeofCompensationunless they are manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent withcompetent relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offendthe interests of justice.Lindquist v. City of Jersey CityFire Dept., 175 N.J. 244, 262 (2003) (internal quotation marksand citations omitted).If a Judge of Compensation mistakenlyapplies the law to the facts, however, we must reverse.SeeSentinel Ins. Co. v. Earthworks Landscape Constr., L.L.C., 421N.J. Super. 480, 485-86 (App. Div. 2011) (citations omitted).To be entitled to compensation under the Act, a claimantbears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence,6A-2714-11T3 see Akef v. BASF Corp., 305 N.J. Super. 333, 340 (App. Div.1997), that his or her injuries, ar[ose] out of and in thecourse of employment [and were] due in a material degree tocauses and conditions which are or were characteristic of orpeculiar to a particular trade, occupation, process or place ofemployment.N.J.S.A. 34:15-31(a).Whether an accident arose out of and in the course ofemployment is a two-part question.Stroka v. United Airlines,364 N.J. Super. 333, 339 (App. Div. 2003), certif. denied, 179N.J. 313 (2004).First, a [claimant] must demonstrate a causalconnectionbetweentheemploymentandtheaccident.Ibid.(citation omitted).Second, a [claimant] must show a time andplace [nexus] between [his or her] employment and the accident.Ibid.In adjudicating such issues, courts must bear in mind that[t]he language of the [Act] must be liberally construed infavor of employees.Cannuscio v. Claridge Hotel, 319 N.J.Super. 342, 349 (App. Div. 1999) (citations omitted).We notethat the [Act] is remedial social legislation and should begivenaliberalconstructioninordertoimplementthelegislative policy of affording coverage to as many workers aspossible.Auletta v. Bergen Ctr. for Child Dev., 338 N.J.Super. 464, 470 (App. Div.) (quoting Brower v. ICT Grp., 1647A-2714-11T3 N.J. 367, 373 (2000)), certif. denied, 169 N.J. 611 (2001).Theevidence supports the findings of the Judge of Compensation,whose expertise and review of the witnesses testimony led herto conclude that Cordeiro was acting within the course andscope of his employment.Affirmed.8A-2714-11T3