Moore v. Moore, 269 P.3d 802

William Moore, Sr. owned Moore Enterprises, a tire business, and died in 2008; Jonathan Moore, Sr. had a long history with Moore Enterprises and operated Morecedes Tire as an independent contractor.
Claimant occasionally did work for Moore Enterprises as an independent contractor, including tire regrooving and repairs, on commissions and as joint ventures.
On May 17, 2005, Claimant was allegedly starting work as an employee for Moore Enterprises when injured while unhooking a tire trailer; he was not paid for that work.
Moore Enterprises filed a workers' compensation claim with Surety; Surety paid medical expenses under automobile policy but contested workers' comp coverage on limitations and status grounds.
Administrative findings and the Commission concluded Claimant was an independent contractor, not an employee, on the day of injury, based on multiple factors and evidence including payment records and tax reporting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports independent contractor status	Moore argues Claimant was an employee on May 17, 2005	Surety contends the evidence shows contractor status based on control/records	Yes; substantial evidence supports independent contractor status
Whether the Commission abused its discretion by denying attorney fees	Claimant seeks fees under 72-804 for contesting the claim	Defendant asserts no fee award because the decision denying benefits was supported by evidence	No; discretionary denial of fees affirmed
Whether Claimant is entitled to attorney fees on appeal	Claims entitlement to appellate fees under 72-804 and Rule 41	Surety opposes appellate fees since the decision was to deny compensation	No; fees on appeal denied

Livingston v. Ireland Bank, 128 Idaho 66 (1995) (employer/employee relationship factors and method of payment)
Shriner v. Rausch, 141 Idaho 228 (2005) (course of dealing admissible in status determination, but not controlling)
Kiele v. Steve Henderson Logging, 127 Idaho 681 (1995) (right to control as a core factor in independent contractor analysis)
Hernandez v. Triple Ell Transport, Inc., 145 Idaho 37 (2007) (four-factor framework for control and balance of factors)
Roman v. Horsley, 120 Idaho 136 (1991) (case recognizing balancing of factors in employment status)
Stewart v. Sun Valley Co., 140 Idaho 381 (2004) (free review of law; defer to Commission on credibility findings)
Excell Constr., Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor, 141 Idaho 688 (2005) (substantial evidence standard for credibility and factual findings)
J.R. Simplot Co. v. State Dep't of Employment, 110 Idaho 762 (1986) (terminology and weight of termination-at-will factor in status analysis)