Preview:

[J-114-1999] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

UNIVERSAL AM-CAN, LTD. AND NATIONAL UNION/AIAC, Appellants

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (CLARENCE O. MINTEER), Appellee

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

No. 30 W.D. Appeal Docket 1999 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered February 2, 1998 at No. 2055 C.D. 1997 affirming the Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board entered June 27, 1997 at A95-4511.

ARGUED: September 13, 1999

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE ZAPPALA

DECIDED: NOVEMBER 27, 2000

The sole issue in this appeal is whether Claimant Clarence O. Minteer was an employee, or an independent contractor, of Appellant Universal Am-Can, Ltd. for the purposes of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Minteer was an independent contractor. Thus, we reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court. Minteer is an owner-operator of a tractor-trailer unit. Pursuant to an operating agreement, Minteer's tractor-trailer was under lease to Universal Am-Can. On April 16, 1993, Minteer fell from his truck while attempting to secure a tarp that covered his shipment. As a result of the fall, Minteer sustained serious injuries to his right arm, left wrist, and left leg. Minteer filed a claim petition under the Pennsylvania Workers'

Compensation Act1 on June 15, 1993, alleging that he became fully disabled because of these injuries. Universal Am-Can denied the allegations, specifically contending that Minteer was an independent contractor at the time of his injuries. In addressing the issue of employee status, the workers' compensation judge concluded that Minteer had met his burden of establishing that he was an employee of Universal Am-Can at the time of the injury. Critical to the WCJ's decision was the finding that, to a significant degree, Universal Am-Can controlled Minteer's work. Thus, Minteer's petition was granted and Universal Am-Can was ordered to pay Minteer disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirmed the decision of the workers' compensation judge on appeal. The Board opined that the key elements in determining employee status are whether the alleged employer has the right to control the work to be done and the manner in which it is performed. In affirming the WCJ's decision, the Board found that the facts indicating that Minteer's work was controlled to a large degree by Universal Am-Can were supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the Board too found Minteer to be an employee of Universal Am-Can. On appeal, a unanimous panel of the Commonwealth Court affirmed. Without so stating, the court upheld the decision of the Board on two distinct bases. First, as did the workers' compensation judge and the Board below, the Commonwealth Court considered certain common-law factors traditionally used in considering employee status. Consistent with the Board's analysis, the Commonwealth Court noted that while all factors are important, the most persuasive indicator of a claimant's employee or independent contractor status lies in the right to control either the work to be done or the manner in which the work is to be accomplished, citing Lynch v. WCAB (Connellsville Area School District), 554 A.2d 159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). The Commonwealth Court concluded that in

1

Act of June 2, 1915, PL 736, as amended, 77 P.S.

Download j-114-1999mo.pdf

Pennsylvania Law