The opinion
FILED
Apr 29, 2025
09:21 AM(ET)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT KNOXVILLE
MARTIN VAZQUEZ ROJAS, ) Docket No. 2024-30-6935
)
v. ) State File No. 860409-2024
)
MARTIN CANTU MODESTO. ) Judge Pamela B. Johnson
EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER
The Court held an expedited hearing on April 23, 2025, to determine whether Mr.
Vazquez Rojas is entitled to medical and temporary disability benefits for his traumatic
partial right-thumb amputation. The central issue is whether Mr. Vazquez Rojas was an
employee of Mr. Cantu Modesto or an independent contractor.
For the reasons below, the Court holds Mr. Vazquez Rojas is not likely to prevail at
a hearing on the merits that he was Mr. Cantu Modesto’s employee. Thus, at present he is
not entitled to medical and temporary disability benefits.
History of Claim
Mr. Cantu Modesto is a handyman who does remodeling. He described his business
as unincorporated and not in a financial position to hire employees or offer salaries or
benefits. He typically works alone but occasionally solicits help from others. When he hires
helpers, the helpers only work a few hours or days to finish the project. The method of pay
varies. The homeowner might pay Mr. Cantu Modesto who then distributes the pay to any
helper assisting him, or the homeowner might pay Mr. Cantu Modesto and the helpers
separately.
During the summer of 2024, Mr. Vazquez Rojas occasionally helped Mr. Cantu
Modesto on a residential kitchen remodeling project. Mr. Vasquez Rojas brought his own
tools to the project and completed work assignments independently of other work for the
project.
1
On September 9, while cutting wood using a table saw, Mr. Vazquez Rojas suffered
a traumatic partial amputation of his right thumb. He was transported to the local
emergency room and underwent surgery.
Mr. Vazquez Rojas testified that he was working for Mr. Cantu Modesto when
injured, so Mr. Cantu Modesto should be responsible for paying his medical and disability
benefits. Mr. Vasquez Rojas has not been able to work full time since the injury, only
working one or two days per week after he healed. He complained of ongoing pain in his
right hand radiating into his arm and that he cannot afford treatment. He said that Mr. Cantu
Modesto has not paid for any of his treatment or time off work.
Mr. Cantu Modesto said that Mr. Vazquez Rojas worked with him, but he worked
as an independent contractor. Mr. Vazquez Rojas supplied his own tools and controlled the
work of his brothers, who worked with him occasionally.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
At the expedited hearing, Mr. Vazquez Rojas must show he would likely prevail on
his requests at a final hearing. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2024).
Mr. Vazquez Rojas clearly suffered a traumatic partial amputation of his right thumb
on a job site. But to prevail at a final hearing, he must establish that an employee-employer
relationship existed.
The Workers’ Compensation Law sets forth certain factors to consider in
determining whether an employment relationship exists, including:
• The right to control the conduct of the work,
• The right of termination,
• The method of payment,
• The freedom to select and hire helpers,
• The furnishing of tools and equipment,
• The self-scheduling of working hours, and
• The freedom to offer services to other entities.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(10)(d)(i).
Applying the facts to these factors, the Court finds as follows:
• The right to control the conduct of the work: Mr. Cantu Modesto testified that Mr.
Vazquez Rojas helped him occasionally to complete projects, and Mr. Vazquez
Rojas completed his work assignments independently of other work for the project.
Mr. Vazquez Rojas did not offer any testimony on this issue.
2
• The right of termination: Mr. Cantu Modesto stated that he usually worked alone
and only occasionally used helpers for a few hours or days to complete a project.
Mr. Vazquez Rojas did not offer any testimony on this issue.
• The method of payment: According to Mr. Cantu Modesto, the method of payment
varied. The homeowner might pay Mr. Cantu Modesto who then distributed the pay
to any helper assisting him or the homeowner may pay Mr. Cantu Modesto and the
helpers separately. However, neither party testified as to the amount paid nor
whether the amount paid was based on an hourly rate, daily rate, or assignment.
• The freedom to select and hire helpers: Both parties testified that Mr. Vazquez Rojas
and his two brothers helped Mr. Cantu Modesto on occasion at work sites. Mr. Cantu
Modesto said that Mr. Vazquez Rojas controlled the work of his brothers. Mr.
Vazquez Rojas did not dispute this testimony.
• The furnishing of tools and equipment: Both parties stated that Mr. Vazquez Rojas
brought his own tools to the job site. However, the parties did not identify to whom
the table saw belonged.
• The self-scheduling of working hours: Neither party offered testimony as to who set
Mr. Vazquez Rojas’ schedule or hours/days that he worked at the job site.
• The freedom to offer services to other entities: Mr. Cantu Modesto testified that he
only used helpers occasionally for a few hours or days, meaning Mr. Vasquez Rojas
had the freedom to work for others. Mr. Vazquez Rojas did not offer any testimony
on this issue.
Based on the limited record, Mr. Cantu Modesto’s unrefuted testimony shows Mr.
Vazquez Rojas was an independent contractor. First, he exerted control over his own work,
working only occasionally and completing work assignments independently. Secondly, he
brought his own tools. Third, he selected his own workers, hiring his brothers and directing
their work. Fourth, he had the freedom to offer services elsewhere, as Mr. Cantu Modesto
testified that he only used helpers occasionally for a few hours or days. Fifth, Mr. Cantu
Modesto did not retain a right of termination if he used helpers only occasionally for certain
projects. Sixth, only Mr. Cantu Modesto testified about the method of payment, saying it
varied and that sometimes homeowners paid helpers separately.
Neither party testified about the amount paid or if payment was based on an hourly
rate, daily rate, or by assignment. Likewise, no one testified about self-scheduling of hours.
Thus, the Court holds that Mr. Vazquez Rojas did not present sufficient evidence to
show he is likely to prevail at a final hearing that he was an employee of Mr. Cantu
3
Modesto. The Court’s ruling does not prohibit Mr. Vazquez Rojas from offering additional
testimony at a future hearing date.
Because Mr. Vazquez Rojas did not establish an employee-employer relationship,
the Court need not address his entitlement to medical and temporary disability benefits.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
1. Mr. Vazquez Rojas’s claim against Mr. Cantu Modesto for the requested benefits is
denied at this time.
2. The Court sets a scheduling hearing for July 28, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The parties must dial 855-543-5041 to participate.
ENTERED April 29, 2024.
_____________________________________
JUDGE PAMELA B. JOHNSON
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
APPENDIX
The technical record consists of all documents filed on the TNComp electronic filing
system, which the Court will consider in reaching its decision. Currently, the technical
record contains the following documents:
1. Petition for Benefit Determination with attachments
2. Expedited Request for Investigation Report
3. Photographs filed October 29, 2024
4. Dispute Certification Notice
5. Hearing Request with attachments
6. Docketing Notice
7. Photographs filed January 23, 2025
8. Show Cause Order
9. Docketing Notice
10. Affidavit of Martin Vazquez Rojas, interpreted January 30, 2025
11. Status Order
12. Docketing Notice
13. Medical Expenses
14. Photographs filed March 4, 2025
15. Status Order
4
16. Expedited Hearing Docketing Notice
17. Notice of Expedited Hearing
18. Statement of Martin Cantu Modesto
The parties did not object to admissibility of any filings contained in the Technical Record.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the order was sent as shown on April 29, 2025.
Name Mail Email Service sent to:
Martin Vazquez Rojas, X X 110 Melissa Lane
Self-Represented Employee Clinton, TN 37716
martin.vazquez.r@hotmail.com
Martin Cantu Modesto, X X 216 South David Lane, Apt. #1
Self-Represented Employer Knoxville, TN 37922
cantu.modesto8830@gmail.com
Claudia Byers, X claudia.byers@tn.gov
LaShawn Pender, lashawn.pender@tn.gov
UEF
Santiago Rodriquez, X santiago.rodiquez@tn.gov
Ombudsman
_____________________________________
PENNY SHRUM, Court Clerk
WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov
5
Right to Appeal:
If you disagree with the Court’s Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Board. To do so, you must:
1. Complete the enclosed form entitled “Notice of Appeal” and file it with the Clerk of the
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims before the expiration of the deadline.
If the order being appealed is “expedited” (also called “interlocutory”), or if the
order does not dispose of the case in its entirety, the notice of appeal must be filed
within seven (7) business days of the date the order was filed.
If the order being appealed is a “Compensation Order,” or if it resolves all issues
in the case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty (30) calendar days of
the date the Compensation Order was filed.
When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy on the opposing party (or attorney,
if represented).
2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar
days after filing the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at any Bureau office
or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the alternative, you may file an
Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s website or any Bureau office)
seeking a waiver of the filing fee. You must file the fully-completed Affidavit of Indigency
within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing
fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will result in dismissal of your appeal.
3. You are responsible for ensuring a complete record is presented on appeal. If no court
reporter was present at the hearing, you may request from the Court Clerk the audio
recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. If you choose to submit a transcript as part of your
appeal, which the Appeals Board has emphasized is important for a meaningful review of
the case, a licensed court reporter must prepare the transcript, and you must file it with the
Court Clerk. The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board,
and you will receive notice once it has been submitted. For deadlines related to the filing of
transcripts, statements of the evidence, and briefs on appeal, see the applicable rules on the
Bureau’s website at https://www.tn.gov/wcappealsboard. (Click the “Read Rules” button.)
4. After the Workers’ Compensation Judge approves the record and the Court Clerk transmits
it to the Appeals Board, a docketing notice will be sent to the parties.
If neither party timely files an appeal with the Appeals Board, the Court Order
becomes enforceable. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(3) (expedited/interlocutory
orders) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (compensation orders).
For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667.