Industrial Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Services, Inc., 325 P.3d 560

Waterman Ormsby, a geologist, contracted with Softrock Geological Services from 2007–2010; he used his own vehicle, tools, business cards, and liability insurance and was classified by Softrock as an independent contractor.
The Division audited Softrock and assessed unemployment tax liability, contending Ormsby was an employee under the Colorado Employment Security Act (CESA).
A hearing officer found Ormsby to be an independent contractor (no employer control and engaged in an independent business), despite Ormsby not having performed similar services for others during the relevant period.
An ICAO hearing panel reversed, deeming Ormsby an employee because he only worked for Softrock and therefore lacked an independent business.
The Colorado Court of Appeals vacated the ICAO panel’s order and instructed application of the nine-factor list in § 8-70-115(1)(c); the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the proper test for the “independent business” prong.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Softrock)	Defendant's Argument (Division)	Held
What test determines whether a worker is “customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business” under § 8-70-115(1)(b)?	The court of appeals (and Softrock) argued the nine factors in § 8-70-115(1)(c) should govern and that no single factor (like exclusively working for one firm) is dispositive.	The Division (and ICAO panel) argued that a worker’s failure to provide similar services to others (i.e., working only for one company) is dispositive evidence of employee status.	The Court held the determination is a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry focused on the relationship dynamics; the § 8-70-115(1)(c) factors are relevant but not exhaustive and no single factor is dispositive.

Long View Sys. Corp. USA v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 197 P.3d 295 (Colo. App. 2008) (employer bears burden to prove independent-contractor status; lists relevant business indicia)
Davison v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 84 P.3d 1023 (Colo. 2004) (standard of review: legal questions reviewed de novo)
Colo. Div. of Emp't & Training v. Accord Human Res., Inc., 270 P.3d 985 (Colo. 2012) (CESA framework and purposes summarized)
Allen Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 762 P.2d 677 (Colo. 1988) (ICAO decisions upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
SZL, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 254 P.3d 1180 (Colo. App. 2011) (discusses employee-protective rationale behind single-factor approach)