CARBAJAL v. PRECISION BUILDERS, INC.
2014 OK 62
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Andres Carbajal, a Spanish‑speaking manual construction laborer, alleged he was injured when scaffolding blew over while working on an Okmulgee, Oklahoma project on April 26, 2010.
- Carbajal had worked for Precision Builders (Precision) intermittently from 2006–2010; he lived on job sites in Texas and sometimes was hired off the street for day work elsewhere.
- He testified Precision supervisors directed where and when to work, tracked his hours, provided travel money, and supplied a shared tool box at job sites; Carbajal also brought some personal hand tools.
- Evidence included IRS forms filed by Precision characterizing payments as non‑employee compensation and a 2009 check with “Subcontract” on the memo line; Carbajal explained certain payments were used to pay other workers lacking ID.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court trial tribunal and a three‑judge review panel found Carbajal was an independent contractor; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo because employee status is a jurisdictional fact, applied the Page v. Hardy multi‑factor test, and found the preponderance of evidence showed an employer‑employee relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Carbajal an employee or independent contractor at time of injury? | Carbajal: Precision exercised control, supplied tools/travel, set hours and assignments — employee. | Precision: IRS forms, a 2009 check marked “Subcontract,” and occasional day work for others show independent contractor status. | Held: Carbajal was an employee; factors (control, tools, payment, work integration) favor employment. |
| Proper standard of appellate review for employment status | Carbajal: jurisdictional fact requires de novo review. | Precision: appellate deference to trial factfinder (any competent evidence). | Held: De novo review applies to jurisdictional fact of employee status. |
| Weight of IRS forms and payment labels in status determination | Carbajal: labels and tax forms are not determinative; claimant’s uncontested testimony explains payments. | Precision: Forms and “Subcontract” memo indicate non‑employee compensation. | Held: IRS forms and a single memoed check are relevant but not dispositive in light of other evidence of control. |
| Whether occasional work for others makes worker a distinct business | Carbajal: casual day hires do not establish an independent business. | Precision: Carbajal’s off‑street hires show he worked for others and was independent. | Held: Working for others briefly does not by itself establish a distinct independent business; overall relationship controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Page v. Hardy, 334 P.2d 782 (Okla. 1958) (sets multi‑factor test for employee vs. independent contractor)
- Bouziden v. Alfalfa Elec. Co‑op., Inc., 16 P.3d 450 (Okla. 2000) (defines independent contractor as lacking control/supervision)
- Triad Transport, Inc. v. Wynne, 276 P.3d 1013 (Okla. 2012) (jurisdictional facts like employment status reviewed de novo)
- Drumright Gas Engine Co. v. Sherrill, 46 P.2d 921 (Okla. 1935) (method of payment is a factor but not dispositive for employment status)