Cajiao v. Arga Transport
30 Neb. Ct. App. 700
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- On Nov. 2, 2017, Oscar Cajiao was injured in a crash while driving a semi-tractor trailer leased by Arga Transport, Inc.
- Cajiao was a long‑time commercial truck driver who had sold his own truck in ~2010 and then worked by contracting to haul loads using trucks provided by carriers.
- In the 15 years before the accident he drove for many companies; for the 6 months before the crash he hauled loads exclusively for Arga.
- Cajiao was paid per mile, received a Form 1099‑MISC (no W‑2), no regular benefits (only a discretionary year‑end bonus), and could accept or decline loads and choose routes.
- Arga scheduled pickup/drop‑off locations and delivery times; the lease required language giving lessee exclusive possession/control of equipment under federal regs, but Arga did not otherwise direct Cajiao’s driving methods.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found Cajiao was an independent contractor and denied benefits; the court’s order was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cajiao was an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of workers’ compensation | Cajiao argued Arga controlled key aspects (lease language, federal regs) and thus was his employer | Arga argued it controlled only the result (deliveries), not the means/methods of driving; Cajiao was a skilled, independent trucker paid per job | Court held Cajiao was an independent contractor — Arga controlled the result but not the means; other factors (distinct occupation, skilled driver, 1099 pay, short exclusive period) supported that status |
| Admissibility of affidavits offered by Arga’s managers | Affidavits should be excluded (foundation, hearsay, relevance, prejudice, speculation) | Arga offered affidavits to support its position | Court admitted affidavits but found them “underwhelming and unpersuasive”; appellate court treated any admission as harmless because the trial court did not rely on them |
| Whether the compensation court failed to issue a reasoned decision under Rule 11 | Claimed failure to provide a reasoned decision | Respondent defended adequacy or argued waiver | Appellate court declined to address because plaintiff did not brief or argue the Rule 11 claim on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Aboytes-Mosqueda v. LFA Inc., 306 Neb. 277 (appellate standard to modify Workers’ Compensation Court decisions)
- Sparks v. M&D Trucking, 301 Neb. 977 (extent of control is the chief factor distinguishing employee from independent contractor)
- Stephens v. Celeryvale Transport, Inc., 205 Neb. 12 (truck drivers may be independent contractors where employer does not control means/methods)
- Omaha World-Herald v. Dernier, 253 Neb. 215 (lack of control over vehicle operation/route supports independent contractor finding)
- Zwiener v. Becton Dickinson-East, 285 Neb. 735 (Workers’ Compensation Court not bound by usual evidence rules; evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710 (admission of evidence that trial court did not rely on is harmless)
- Choto v. Consolidated Lumber Transport, 82 A.D.3d 1369 (federal lease language requiring lessee control does not by itself determine employee/independent contractor status)