written on February 22, 2011 by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
Related Items
- Workers’ Compensation: In-House Machines and Product Liability
-
written on June 20, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- More Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Workers’ Compensation Claims and Hearings
-
written on June 15, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- Workers’ Compensation: Temporary Total Disability: Always Total, Seldom Temporary
-
written on June 06, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- Workers’ Compensation: Righting a Wrong: The Employer’s Use of Mandamus Proceedings
-
written on May 25, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- Workers’ Compensation: The Industrial Commission of Ohio Discontinues the Regular Use of Video Hearings
-
written on May 23, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- Workers' Compensation - Beware of Employee Misclassification When Using Independent Contractors
-
written on February 22, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- Keys To Minimizing Lost Productivity
-
written on August 10, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Information About the 2009 BWC Capping Program for Disqualified Employers
-
written on August 10, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- New Medicare Reporting Requirements for the 15K Program
-
written on August 10, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Regular Employee vs Sub Contractor is there really a difference
-
written on April 29, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Workers Comp New Injury Cheat Sheet
-
written on April 27, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- The Independent Medical Exam IME Who When and Why
-
written on April 20, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Transitional Work is GOOD Business
-
written on April 13, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- The New BWC Deductible Program
-
written on April 08, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Workers Comp eNewsletter Welcome from Steve Millard
-
written on April 07, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Workers Comp Terms and Definitions
-
written on April 03, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Workers Compensation Administrative Update Whats Up With Group Rating
-
written on April 02, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- The Workers Comp Hearing Process
-
written on April 02, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Ive Fallen and I Cant Get Up What To Do When an Injury Occurs in Your Workplace
-
written on April 02, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
View All
More By This Expert
-
Workers’ Compensation: In-House Machines and Product Liability
-
written on June 20, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
-
More Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Workers’ Compensation Claims and Hearings
-
written on June 15, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
-
Workers’ Compensation: Temporary Total Disability: Always Total, Seldom Temporary
-
written on June 06, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
-
Workers’ Compensation: Righting a Wrong: The Employer’s Use of Mandamus Proceedings
-
written on May 25, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
-
Workers’ Compensation: The Industrial Commission of Ohio Discontinues the Regular Use of Video Hearings
-
written on May 23, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
-
Workers' Compensation - Beware of Employee Misclassification When Using Independent Contractors
-
written on February 22, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
View All
Consider this scenario: Acme Builders is constructing a beautiful home for new Browns quarterback Brady Quinn. Acme contracts with former Browns quarterback (and first round draft pick) Tim Couch, out of work and quite bored, to hang drywall at the worksite. Tim verbally agrees with Acme that he is an independent contractor and therefore acknowledges that Acme will not provide him with workers’ compensation coverage. A few days into the job, Tim sustains a serious workplace injury. Although Tim’s injury itself is not surprising, Tim’s actions post-injury are surprising. Despite his verbal agreement with Acme, Tim decides to file a workers’ compensation claim. Acme contests the same under the assumption that Tim (as an independent contractor and not an employee of Acme) is simply not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits through Acme.
Whether or not Tim will receive workers’ compensation benefits for his injury will initially turn on his classification as an employee of Acme or an independent contractor. As a general rule, independent contractors are not considered employees for workers’ compensation purposes. If Tim is considered an independent contractor (and therefore not an employee of Acme), he will be unable to receive workers’ compensation benefits through Acme. However, if Tim is considered an employee of Acme, the question will then proceed to whether or not there is a compensable claim. If it is a compensable claim, Acme would be personally responsible for all claim costs. Acme might also have to prepare for an audit by the Ohio Bureau of Worker’s Compensation to address other similarly situated individuals who have contracted with Acme. As a result of the audit, Acme may be found to owe unpaid premiums to the Bureau. So clearly, Tim’s claim could have a significant impact on Acme!
So, how will the Industrial Commission determine if Tim is an employee of Acme or an independent contractor? Although it seems fairly straightforward, it unfortunately is not.
The Ohio Workers’ Compensation Act sets forth a very detailed definition as to who specifically constitutes an “employee” for workers’ compensation purposes. Moreover, the Act provides that persons who perform labor or provide services pursuant to a construction contract will be considered an employee if specific criteria apply. Twenty specific criteria are listed and ten must apply for an individual to be considered an employee.
Additionally, Ohio courts have consistently stated that when determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor, the key factual determination is “who had the right to control the manner or means of the individual’s work.” This is commonly called the “right to control” test and it basically states that an employer-employee relationship exists when an employer reserves the right to control the manner and means of doing the work. Conversely, if the manner and means of doing the work is left to one who is responsible to the employer only for the result, an independent contractor relationship is created. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that when determining “who has control,” the factors to be considered include (but are not limited to), who controls the details and quality of the work, who controls the hours and days worked, who selects the materials, tools and personnel used, who selects the routes traveled, the length of employment, the type of business, the method of payment and any pertinent written or oral agreements.
As you can see, determining whether or not Tim is an employee of Acme or an independent contractor requires a fairly detailed analysis. With more facts, it would be possible for us to analyze this situation with the numerous criteria outlined above and in the Ohio Revised Code. This would give us a good idea as to how the Industrial Commission of Ohio would rule in this matter.
Luckily, Acme’s predicament is a purely fictional one. However, many Ohio employers are going to have a similar situation arise at one point or another. From a practical standpoint, remember that oral or written agreements between parties will not be the ultimate authority in a determination concerning whether or not an individual is an employee, but only one factor reviewed in light of many others. As such, it is always wise to procure an agreement, but do not hope to rely solely on the same. Creating a working relationship with a focus upon the criteria set forth above will ensure that an independent contractor relationship exists.
By
Anthony A. Baucco