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...
Construing Oklahoma law, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal district court’s dismissal of a negligence action filed against the sole stockholder of a worker’s employer, finding the district court failed to consider the stockholder's “persona...
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...
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...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 83 No. 3 Mar 2018 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions Denied Judicial Review CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE © Copyright...
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...
Where there was virtually no evidence that a construction worker’s actions were controlled by the purported employer and where it also appeared that the purported employer exercised little, if any, control over the injured worker’s work or employment...
Where a heating and air-conditioning worker did not bid for work on any projects performed by the purported employer, was not disclosed by the purported employer as an independent contractor to general contractors on the various work projects, and was required...
The North Carolina Industrial Commission did not err in concluding that plaintiff (“Bentley”) was an independent contractor—and not an employee—of a construction company where it appeared, in relevant part, that Bentley held himself out...
Under Louisiana’s “manual labor exception,” an independent contractor may be protected by workers’ compensation law if he or she demonstrates that (1) a substantial part of his or her work time is spent in manual labor in carrying out the terms of the contract...
A NIOSH Commentary reviews the current research and paints a troubling picture for nonstandard workers It is no secret that more and more work is being performed by American workers outside of the traditional employer-employee relationship. Employers are increasingly...
A state appellate court agreed with the Washington Department of Labor and Industries that 33 drivers who contracted with a company to perform courier services for third parties were “workers” within the meaning of Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.180, and penalties assessed...
A general contractor that implemented a contractor controlled insurance program (CCIP) to centralize the purchasing of workers’ compensation insurance for a major project has “paid compensation benefits” to the employees of its subcontractors, entitling it to ...