Although he signed an independent contractor agreement, claimant was an employee at the time of the work injury, primarily due to significant control exercised by the employer through its ownership of the truck and payments made by the mile.

The claimant, a truck driver, filed a claim petition for a work-related left wrist injury. He later filed a petition against the Uninsured Employer’s Guaranty Fund (UEGF). 

The claimant testified that at the time he was hired by the employer, he signed various documents, including an Independent Contractor Agreement, although did not read them. He believed the employer had workers’ compensation insurance. Job assignments were received from the employer’s dispatcher, but he could refuse a driving assignment. Also, he could work for other companies, but never did, and would not have been permitted to use the employer’s trucks for other companies. He paid for his own food on the road. Although he determined his routes himself, the employer gave him deadlines for deliveries.

The employer testified that the claimant signed an Independent Contractor Agreement and was informed at that time that there would be no workers’ compensation coverage. The employer further testified that drivers were not told how to perform their duties and he did not pay for drivers’ meals or lodging on the road. He confirmed drivers were not restricted from working for other companies and could not use the employer’s trucks to do so. Drivers were issued 1099 IRS forms. He further acknowledged making an informal, post-injury job offer to the claimant, which would allow him to ride with other drivers.

Originally, the Workers’ Compensation Judge dismissed the claim petition, finding that the claimant had not established employee status. On appeal, however, the Appeal Board reversed and found the claimant was not an independent contractor, but an employee. According to the Board, the Independent Contractor Agreement was not dispositive. They remanded the case to the judge, who reversed himself and awarded benefits to the claimant. On appeal by the employer, the Appeal Board affirmed.

The Commonwealth Court also affirmed, acknowledging this was a close case. Nevertheless, they found that the claimant was an employee because the employer exercised significant control through its ownership of the trucks used by its drivers and payment to its drivers by the mile. The court further rejected the employer’s argument that the claimant should not receive benefits due to an offer made by the employer of a job riding along with other drivers, which the claimant refused. The court affirmed the judge’s finding that the job offer in question was non-specific. 
 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No. 11, November 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}