State ex rel. Ohio Valley Selective Harvesting, L.L.C. v. Buehrer
2017 Ohio 369
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- OVSH (Ohio Valley Selective Harvesting), a sole proprietorship operated by Peggy Lansing, reported no employees when obtaining BWC coverage in May 2012.
- A 2014 injury claim by Kelly Smith triggered a BWC Special Investigations Unit review; Smith claimed he was employed by OVSH and injured on April 23, 2014; OVSH contested employment status in the claim process.
- BWC audited OVSH (2012–2013) and found payments to workers reported on 1099s, the employer owned major equipment, lacked signed contractor agreements or invoices, and deducted worker-related expenses on tax returns.
- BWC concluded the 1099 workers were actually employees for workers’ compensation reporting and issued an invoice for unpaid premiums; OVSH protested and requested hearings.
- The adjudicating committee and the administrator’s designee reviewed evidence (including testimony that Brad Lansing acted as foreman, transportation of workers, employer-supplied equipment, substantial payments to individuals) and upheld BWC’s determination that the workers were employees.
- Relators filed this mandamus action asking the court to order BWC to vacate its order and find the workers independent contractors; the court denied the writ, adopting the magistrate’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BWC abused discretion by finding OVSH’s 1099 workers were employees for WC reporting | OVSH: workers were independent contractors paid 1099s; business is seasonal and hires job-by-job; no ongoing employment | BWC: evidence shows right-to-control, employer-supplied equipment, continued relationships, employer-directed transport and discipline; lack of contracts/invoices supports employee status | Held: No abuse of discretion — BWC permissibly found an employer-employee relationship |
| Whether BWC could estimate/uninvoice premiums given incomplete records | OVSH: argued workers were contractors so no payroll to report | BWC: R.C. 4123.24 allows bureau to determine premiums from available information when employer fails to maintain/produce records | Held: BWC properly relied on available information and audit to determine premiums |
| Whether firing/discipline evidence undermines contractor status | OVSH: alleged isolated language (“fired”) or perception does not prove control | BWC: termination, supervision, and foreman presence are indicia of control | Held: BWC reasonably considered termination and foreman role as evidence of control |
| Whether BWC’s determination binds other agencies | OVSH: sought broader relief that would affect other reporting obligations | BWC: its determination pertains only to WC payroll reporting | Held: Administrator’s designee explicitly stated determination is for WC reporting only and not binding on IRS or ODJFS |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillum v. Industrial Commission, 48 N.E.2d 234 (Ohio 1943) (sets the basic control test distinguishing employees from independent contractors)
- Bostic v. Connor, 524 N.E.2d 881 (Ohio 1988) (lists factors to assess right-to-control and employment status under Ohio law)
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1983) (explains the three requirements for mandamus relief)