# Scher v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · September 23, 1999 · 740 A.2d 741

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753875

## Case

- **Full name:** Joel SCHER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and Compservices, Inc.), Respondents
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 23, 1999
- **Citations:** 740 A.2d 741; 1999 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 728
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kelley
- **Judges:** Smith, Kelley, Mirarchi
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753875

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753875. Public record. Not legal advice.