Claimant was ineligible for benefits on the basis that, by law, she was an independent contractor and not an employee at the time of her injury.

The claimant worked as a personal caretaker for the company and filed a claim petition against it. The Workers’ Compensation Judge first decided if the claimant was an independent contractor. The claimant had signed a document titled “Independent Contractor Agreement,” but the company controlled and dictated several aspects of the claimant’s work; advised the claimant of each client’s condition; set the claimant’s hours; established guidelines for care; provided a manual for care; and trained the claimant on how to be a caretaker. The company billed the clients, but the claimant received her payment directly from clients, not the company. The claimant paid her own taxes and identified herself as self-employed in her tax returns.

The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Appeal Board’s finding that the claimant was an independent contractor: her daily tasks were controlled by the clients, not the company; although the company provided a set of guidelines, it did not prescribe actual tasks to be completed; the claimant was not required to check in with the company on a daily basis and could take time off at her discretion; her uniform was not supplied by the company; clients possessed the ultimate power to maintain or discharge caretakers and set the rate of pay.

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2016}

_{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 © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}