A worker who fell from his scaffolding while installing siding was an independent contractor and not eligible for workers compensation benefits for his injuries. The Virginia Court of Appeals reviewed the difference between an independent contractor and an employee:
An independent contractor is “employed to do a piece of work without restriction as to the means to be employed, and who employs his own labor and undertakes to do the work according to his own ideas, or in accordance with plans furnished by the person for whom the work is done.” Id. (quoting Epperson v. DeJarnette, 164 Va. 482, 486 (1935)). An independent contractor is a person “to whom the owner looks only for results.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Epperson, 164 Va. at 486). By contrast, “[t]he elements of an employment relationship are: (1) selection and engagement of the employee, (2) payment of wages, (3) power of dismissal, and (4) power of control of the employee’s action.” Behrensen v. Whitaker, 10 Va. App. 364, 366 (1990).
The fourth factor—power of control—is the “most significant element bearing on the question.” Purvis v. Porter Cabs, Inc., 38 Va. App. 760, 766 (2002) (quoting Stover v. Ratliff, 221 Va. 509, 512 (1980)). Indeed, “an employer-employee relationship exists only if the control reserved includes the power to control, not only the result to be accomplished, but also the means and methods by which the result is to be accomplished.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Gill, 224 Va. 92, 98 (1982). Other factors include “[w]hether there are deductions from compensation” and “whether the employer or the work[er] supplies the instrumentalities [and] tools.” Creative Designs, 56 Va. App. at 309, 310 (third alteration in original). Those factors, however, “merely help to elucidate the manner and degree of control” an employer exerts over the worker. Id. at 310 (quoting Gill, 224 Va. at 98).
The court reviewed the facts of the case and determined that the worker was an independent contractor to whom the siding company looked to “only for results.” The worker did not require supervision and the company did not exercise control over him. The court concluded that the worker was not eligible for workers compensation benefits.
See also Administrative: Independent contractor denied workers’ compensation – Challenge-Emilianosala
