Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
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 pointed toward an independent contractor relationship, others pointed to an employment relationship between the roofer and the company. The court remanded the case for a full consideration of the employment relation issues. Citing Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 60.05, the court noted that the roofer was required to wear the company’s logo on his shirts, that he was provided with a magnetic sign for his truck that displayed the company’s name—not his own—and that for a period of three years, the roofer had performed no roofing services for any other company, the court stressed that additional findings were required in the case.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law(LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Ramirez v. May River Roofing, 2021 S.C. App. LEXIS 61 (June 23, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 60.05.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.