of “employer” does not encompass the Agency-nurse relationship here. Statutory employer status is determined by the nature of the putative employer’s business. In re Chatham Woods Holdings, LLC, 2008 VT 70, ¶ 11, 184 Vt. 163, 955 A.2d 1183. Specifically, this “nature-of-the-business” test asks “whether the work contracted for [by the owner or proprietor with the independent contractor] is a part of, or process in, the trade, business or occupation of the owner [or proprietor.]” Id. (quotations omitted); King, 144 Vt. at 401, 479 A.2d at 755. Shared commonality of interest with associated businesses is insufficient to render a proprietor a statutory employer of the associate’s employees. See, e.g., Vella v. Hartford Vt. Acquisitions, Inc., 2003 VT 108, ¶ 15, 176 Vt. 151, 838 A.2d 126 (<HOLDING>); King, 144 Vt. at 401, 479 A.2d at 755
holding that lessor of a commercial garage was not statutoiy employer of leasing bus company employee who was injured there holding that an attached garage is part of the home for payton purposes even when the garage door is open holding where condemnation of a temporary easement in an airport parking garage was primarily designed for economic benefit to gain control of the garage at a discounted price the taking was not for public use and therefore was an unconstitutional taking holding that an employee could not be bound to an arbitration agreement that had been mailed to him by his employer acceptance of which was indicated by employees continued tenure with the company where there was no evidence in the record that the employee had received read or understood the document holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits