Lane v Via Boncourier (SIF only)
2018 MO WCLR LEXIS 243
Oct. 31, 2018
The Commission affirms a denial of benefits based on an failure to prove the claimant was an employee under the Act, with a supplemental report to address issues of statutory employment. Claimant had sought permanent and total disability benefits from the Fund.
The ALJ found claimant was self-employed. The claimant sought an appeal and asserted she was a statutory employee.
Claimant entered an employment contract and asserted she was an independent contractor. Her job was to deliver items and use her own vehicle.
The only dispute was "whether employee's injury occurred "on or about the premises of the employer," the second component of the three-prong statutory employment test. The SIF argued that an accident on a public highway was not on or about the employer's premises.
The commission applied strict construction and a dictionary definition of premises and found no intent to extend premises to include public highways and found claimant failed to prove all prongs of statutory employment to show she was a covered employee.
A dissent argued that premises must include roads because couriers did not perform their job function by remaining at one location.
Claimant testified her work involved at times a continuous 40-hour work environment, but the claimant controlled the means and method of her work and chose her routes of delivery. The claimant could choose to work at will and could refuse daily assignments if she so chose. The claimant's means and operation of doing her courier work, which involved delivering blood products and bank documents to various individuals and entities, was at her discretion on the time and route of delivery as well as whether she chose to work that particular day. The claimant was reimbursed $ 14 per hour for her time period worked.
The ALJ noted:
"The claimant is deemed to be self-employed as evidenced by the multitude of facts in this case. The claimant candidly and freely admitted that she was not an employee of Via Bancourier, that she signed documentation to that effect. The claimant further admitted that Via Bancourier represented to her that she was not an employee and therefore not covered under the Workers' Compensation Law. The claimant acknowledged that if she wanted workers' compensation coverage it was her responsibility to provide same. The claimant was not provided any benefits from the employer/insurer beyond the $ 14 per hour agreed upon wage. The claimant was further reimbursed 20 percent of her gasoline expenses for her mileage driven while in the course of her delivery duties. The claimant was further provided a 1099 with no withholdings at the end of every year for her tax records. The claimant testified that for most of the period while engaged with Via Bancourier she was able to work 40 hours per week, this was not guaranteed by Via Bancourier and the claimant could choose to work different hours if she chose. The alleged employer, Via Bancourier, did not execute any right of control on the means and matter of her service as long as the documents that were entrusted to her care were delivered. The duration of the claimant's employment seemed to be at her discretion in that she could choose the hours which she worked. The claimant testified that while engaged as a courier with Via Bancourier there was no expressed prohibition that she could not engage in similar work for other couriers if she so chose. While there is no bright line of delineation of individual facts which determine whether an individual is an employee of an employer, the multitude of facts admitted to by the claimant in this situation describe an environment in which the claimant was self-employed as a courier doing work for Via Bancourier. The claimant acknowledged that she was not within the workers' compensation system as so engaged with Via Bancourier and chose not to avail herself of workers' compensation benefits."
The employer had settled the primary case for an unspecified amount.
The ALJ issued no opinion regarding claimant's evidence supported an award of total benefits.
ALJ Siedlik
Atty: Mayer, Alpough, Hinson
