Reversing, in relevant part, an appellate panel’s determination that an injured roofer was an independent contractor, and not an employee of a roofing contractor for whom he was providing services, a South Carolina appellate court held that while indeed some factors...
Noting that control of the work and the manner in which the work is accomplished is the key factor in the analysis of whether a particular worker is an employee or an employment relationship, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed with a determination that...
An Arkansas appellate court held that while the payment (and collection) of workers' compensation insurance premiums based upon a particular worker's earnings was one factor to be considered in determining whether that worker was an employee or an independent...
Where the plaintiff and her husband contracted to drive a semi-truck for a trucking company, were both subject to termination by the company, and were not free to drive for other trucking companies, there was sufficient evidence of control to characterize them...
A Washington appellate court recently affirmed an assessment of almost $1 million in workers’ compensation premiums, penalties, and interest against a Seattle delivery service company that had argued its drivers were independent contractors and not employees...
A New York appellate court recently ruled that a state trial court was beyond its powers when it determined that an injured worker was an independent contractor and not an employee. Such a determination was for the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board;...
In a split decision, the Supreme Court of Michigan held that MCLS § 418.171(4)—a provision that prohibits the misclassification of certain employees in order to avoid workers’ compensation liability—did not apply to a plaintiff/employee who...
Where a restaurant owner hired an experienced remodeler to complete work at the restaurant prior to its opening, neither the owner nor the restaurant was engaged in the “construction industry,” held the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, Pennsylvania’s...
An Ohio court affirmed a finding that a logger was an independent contractor and not an employee, where evidence indicated the logger was hired at a rate of $80 per day, the logger had represented that he had extensive experience in logging, the logger was told...
In a case involving an utterly bizarre fact pattern, a California appellate court held that a civil action for negligence and misrepresentation filed by two private citizens against a California county was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions in Cal. Labor...
Emphasizing that the definition of “employee” within the context of workers’ compensation law was not identical with the common law definition and that the tests used to determine whether a particular worker was an employee versus an independent...
The definition of “employee” contained within the Massachusetts independent contractor statute (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 149, § 148B), does not displace the definition of “employee” contained in the state’s workers’ compensation...
In a decision in which the plurality, the concurring, and the dissenting opinions all quoted Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law , the Supreme Court of Vermont held that an individual who sustained injuries while student teaching received “wages”...
A deputy sheriff who provided security services at a grocery store was an independent contractor; he was not an employee of the store, held an Arkansas appellate court. The court noted that the sheriff’s department required that the deputy secure permission...
A "skin care specialist and spokesmodel,” who worked in a Bloomingdale's department store, was the employee of the skin care company whose products the model demonstrated, held a New York appellate court, affirming a decision of the state’s Workers’ Compensation...