stating that “the question of whether a claimant is an employee or an independent contractor is one of law, reviewable by the Board and this Court. This review, however, is to be based upon the findings of fact” and that neither the Board nor this Court may reweigh the evidence
How later courts described this case
- stating that “the question of whether a claimant is an employee or an independent contractor is one of law, reviewable by the Board and this Court. This review, however, is to be based upon the findings of fact” and that neither the Board nor this Court may reweigh the evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KELLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
While I agree that Claimant was an employee for purposes of taking notes of testimony in the courtroom, I do not agree with the majority that Claimant was an employee with regard to the production of transcripts. Claimant, not Employer, had total control over the manner in which the transcripts were prepared. Claimant alone determined how, where and when to prepare a transcript, whether to hire a typist and if so, who and the amount of compensation to be paid. Claimant also received additional payment for the production of transcripts from Employer and attorneys, which was apart from the salary provided by Employer. For these reasons, it is my belief that Claimant was acting as an independent contractor, not an employee, for purposes of preparing transcripts. As Claimant was injured en route to the typist to procure a prepared transcript, I believe that Claimant is not eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits. Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the Board denying workers’ compensation benefits.