Case Law Alerts
First DCA affirms the claimant as an independent contractor.
This case was bifurcated on the issue of compensability, specifically to determine whether the claimant was working as an independent contractor or as an employee of the condominium association at the time of his accident. The judge of compensation claims found that the claimant was essentially a sole proprietor, as he was able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer and received compensation for work or services rendered at completion of a task. The judge also held that, because the claimant worked for an hourly wage, his testimony supported that he "[received] compensation for work or services performed ... on a per job basis." He was assigned specific tasks, completed them one at a time, and had the option (exercised on several occasions) to receive his pay upon the completion of each task. Therefore, the claimant was deemed an independent contractor on the date of his accident and not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The First District Court of Appeal per curiam affirmed.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2019
Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.