CARBAJAL v. PRECISION BUILDERS, INC.
2014 OK 62
Okla.2014Background
- Carbajal was injured on scaffolding while working on a Oklahoma construction project; he claimed to be an employee of Precision Builders, Inc. but the Workers' Compensation Court found he was an independent contractor.
- The trial tribunal denied benefits, finding claimant was not an employee; a three-judge panel affirmed, and the Court of Civil Appeals sustained.
- The central issue is whether Carbajal was an employee or an independent contractor at the time of injury (April 26, 2010) under the Workers' Compensation Act.
- Oklahoma law defined employee and employment, and historically independent contractors were excluded from the employee definition; the statute also makes independent contractors liable for workers' compensation to their own employees.
- The court applies Page v. Hardy factors to determine employment status, focusing on control, instruments, payment, and other indicia of an employer-employee relationship.
- The Court reverses the Civil Appeals’ and the panel’s determinations, finds Carbajal was an employee, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether review is de novo for jurisdictional facts. | Carbajal (plaintiff) argues status is jurisdictional and reviewed de novo. | Precision contends standard of review defers to the Workers' Compensation Court. | De novo review applies. |
| Whether Page v. Hardy factors prove employee status. | Claimant shows control, direction, tools, travel payments, and lack of independent contractor traits. | Employer argues factors do not establish an employee relationship. | Factors support employee status; remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Page v. Hardy, 334 P.2d 782 (Okla. 1958) (establishes the multi-factor approach for employee vs. independent contractor status)
- Tolbert v. Eastern Contracting, Inc., 978 P.2d 358 (Okla. 1999) (jurisdictional fact review; framework for de novo determination)
- Garrison v. Bechtel Corp., 889 P.2d 273 (Okla. 1995) (illustrates comprehensive factual weighing for status)
- Brown v. Burkett, 755 P.2d 650 (Okla. 1988) (employee vs independent contractor analysis)
- Mills v. R.T. "Bob" Nelson's Painting Service, 421 P.2d 849 (Okla. 1966) (economic reality of multiple employers considered)
- Drumright Gas Engine Co. v. Sherrill, 46 P.2d 921 (Okla. 1935) (early test for control and nature of work)
- Swyden Construction Co. v. White, 383 P.2d 674 (Okla. 1963) (recognizes contractor status considerations)
- Treat v. McDonald’s, 854 P.2d 393 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993) (cited regarding nonprecedential authority and evidence considerations)
- Rivera v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 977 P.2d 366 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999) (cited for context on status theories)