McGriff v. Janiyah Shoe Forum, I.C. NOS. 929571 PH-2118.

Plaintiff, age 45, alleges injury March 19, 2008 while working for Jumpstart Tax Services/Janiyah Shoe Forum, LLC.
Defendant-Employer reportedly had few workers and used independent contractors; plaintiffs claims center on employee status.
Hearing before Deputy Commissioner; Full Commission granted reconsideration and reversed Deputy’s Opinion.
Evidence included multiple exhibits and witness statements; credibility determinations were made by Full Commission.
Full Commission concluded defendant did not have three or more regular employees and that plaintiff was not a compensable employee under the Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jumpstart had three or more employees at the time of injury	Plaintiff shows multi-worker operation; more than three employees.	Defendant had no three regular employees; not subject to Act.	No jurisdictional three-employee finding; Act not applicable.
Whether plaintiff was an employee under the Act	Plaintiff operated as employee/office manager with duties.	Plaintiff was an independent contractor.	Plaintiff not an employee; independent-contractor status favored.
Whether injury arose out of and in the course of employment	Injury occurred while performing employment duties.	Injury not causally connected to employment duties.	Injury not compensable under the Act.
Whether, if covered, plaintiff could receive workers’ compensation benefits	She qualifies as employee and injury is compensable.	No coverage due to independent contractor status and lack of course/origin.	Even if covered, claim not compensable.
Whether the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the claim	Wariness of jurisdiction due to alleged employee status.	Lack of three employees defeats jurisdiction.	Commission lacks jurisdiction under NC Gen. Stat. § 97-2.

Barber v. Going West Transp., Inc., 134 N.C. App. 428, 517 S.E.2d 914 (1999) (dominant-factor test for employee vs independent contractor; control factors used)
Williams v. ARL, Inc., 133 N.C. App. 625, 516 S.E.2d 187 (1999) (examines employee status under control framework)
Hayes v. Elon College, 224 N.C. 11, 29 S.E.2d 137 (1944) (dominant indicator is employer’s control over methods)
Didly v. MBW Investments, Inc., 152 N.C. App. 65, 566 S.E.2d 759 (2002) (arising-out-and-in-the-course requirements for compensation)
Perry v. American Bakeries Co., 262 N.C. 272, 136 S.E.2d 643 (1964) (definitions of course of employment and activity)
Roberts v. Burlington Indus., Inc., 321 N.C. 350, 364 S.E.2d 417 (1988) (arising-out-of employment analysis in workers’ comp)
Gaddy v. Kern, 17 N.C. App. 680, 195 S.E.2d 141 (1973) (requires causal relation between accident and employment duties)