The Pennsylvania Courts have addressed the consequence of independent contractor v. employee in the workers compensation context quite a number of times. An contained contractor is not entitled to workers compensation benefits from the agency or company for whom he/she is providing services if he/she is injured while providing those services. An employee is entitled to workers compensation benefits if injured while performing such services.

Whether a worker is an employee or an contained contractor is a question of law to exist adamant by a Workers Compensation Approximate later evidence is presented. However, the determination is heavily dependent upon the facts of the human relationship betwixt the injured worker and the visitor for whom he/she was providing services. The Courts have stated that there is no "hard and fast" rule as to whether that relationship is "employer-employee" or "owner-contained contractor". Courts must consider the following factors:

  1. control of the fashion in which the work is done;
  2. whether in that location is responsibility for event of the work only and not the manner in which information technology is performed;
  3. the terms of any agreement between the parties;
  4. the nature of the work/occupation being performed;
  5. the skill required for operation;
  6. whether one is engaged in a distinct occupation or business concern;
  7. which party supplies the tools/equipment;
  8. whether payment is by time or by the job;
  9. whether work is role of the regular business of employer; and,
  10. who has the right to terminate employment.

Control over the work to be completed and the style in which it is to be performed are the primary factors in determining employee condition.

In Edwards v. WCAB (Epicure Home Care, Inc.) , decided March x, 2016, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that Ms. Edwards (a dwelling health caregiver) was an contained contractor and not an employee of Epicure Dwelling house Care, Inc. for whom she performed the caregiver services. In reaching its decision in Edwards , the Court relied on a similar decision (Fletcher v. WCAB (Saia d/b/a Visiting Angels) ) reached in 2010. In Fletcher , the injured worker performed services as a home health adjutant for a client of a senior home care referral bureau. The Workers Compensation Judge had determined that the agency was not the employer of the injured worker. In reaching the determination, the Workers Compensation Gauge found that the agency did non supervise the worker'due south job activities and exercised no command whatsoever over the worker'south activities at the client's residence. Rather, the client supervised and controlled the injured worker's task activities.

Moreover, the client paid the worker straight and no taxes were withheld. The injured worker had the pick to negotiate the rate of pay with the client directly and not through the agency. The Workers Bounty Judge further plant that the worker had signed a caregiver agreement with the agency acknowledging that she was an independent contractor.

The Judge's conclusion was upheld by the Workers Compensation Appeal Board and the  Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

In Edwards, the Workers Bounty Judge found that the worker was an employee of the visitor simply that conclusion was reversed by the Workers Compensation Appeal Board. The Appeal Lath found that the worker was an contained contractor and therefore was not entitled to workers compensation benefits from the company. The Democracy Courtroom and then affirmed the Workers Bounty Entreatment Lath.

In Edwards, the Workers Compensation Gauge found factors indicative of an employer-employee relationship. The visitor provided guidelines to the injured worker which included instructions on personal services provided. The company also directed the injured worker to clothing scrubs, maintain records on inflow and divergence times, not to exit clients unattended, maintain confidentiality, and not to use cell phones. The company also established the working hours and wages, and had the ability to terminate the employment.

Withal, the Workers Compensation Guess as well made other findings supporting the worker's status as an independent contractor. The company billed the clients and set a suggested rate of pay merely the clients paid the worker directly and determined the rate of pay.

The worker deducted her own taxes from the payments she received from the client and identified herself every bit self-employed on her taxation returns. The company did not provide any ill time, holiday or holiday pay. The worker signed an agreement which stated that caretakers are not employees of the company, that caretakers were to be paid direct by the client, and caretakers were responsible for deducting their own taxes.

Nearly importantly, every bit the Court had establish in Fletcher , the injured worker's solar day-to-24-hour interval tasks were controlled by the customer and not the visitor. Although the company provided a general set up of guidelines for the worker, it did non prescribe actual tasks to be completed or the manner in which work was to be performed. The injured worker did not cheque in with the company on a daily basis. The worker could accept time off at her discretion. The company did non supply the uniform or other implements of work. Although the visitor matched clients to caretakers, the clients possessed the ultimate power to maintain or belch the caretakers, and gear up the last charge per unit of pay.

Ultimately, the Democracy Courtroom found that control over the worker was not exercised primarily by the company but rather by the client of the company. Therefore, the Court determined that the worker was not an "employee" of the company.

Click hither for more than FAQ's on Workers Compensation.

If you have been injured at work and are denied workers compensation benefits because information technology is declared that you are an independent contractor, contact John J. Stanzione, Esq. at 610-430-8000 / jstanzione@lambmcerlane.com.

Mr. Stanzione has over 30 years of experience representing employees with respect to multiple employment matters including workers compensation claims, wage loss claims, claims for wrongful termination and discrimination claims. In add-on, the law firm of Lamb McErlane is a multi-service law firm with attorneys specializing in several legal disciplines such as business law, family law, personal injury law, criminal law, corporate transactions, social security disability, wills and trusts, manor planning and real estate constabulary.