Woodmancy v. Framco, Inc.
2011 Ark. App. 785
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Woodmancy, president of J & S Framing, sustained a head/shoulder/upper arm injury in a June 29, 2009 ladder fall while remodeling a Walmart in Shelbyville, Tennessee.
- An ALJ held Woodmancy was an independent contractor, not Framco’s employee; the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed.
- Woodmancy and J & S had separate bank accounts, a separate tax ID, and a workers’ compensation policy; Woodmancy excluded himself via certificate of noncoverage and was paid through J & S as salary.
- At the outset, Woodmancy intended no tax withholding and no workers’ compensation coverage for himself.
- Arkansas Code § 11-9-402(c)(1)(A) guides the employee vs. independent contractor analysis for sole proprietorships/partners; a multifactor test applies, focusing on control and the master-servant relationship.
- The Commission weighed factors and concluded the most important factor was the belief of the parties regarding a master-servant relationship, which favored independent contractor status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Woodmancy was an employee or independent contractor for workers’ compensation. | Woodmancy argues Framco exercised sufficient control to make him an employee. | Framco contends he was an independent contractor under the contract and conduct test. | Independent contractor; Commission’s denial reversed affirmatively. |
| Whether the master-servant relationship factor was correctly weighed. | Control, training, tools, and payroll treatment show master-servant. | Belief of the parties that the relationship was not master-servant weighs in favor of independent contractor. | Yes; the Commission’s emphasis on the parties’ belief as the decisive factor was supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the Commission’s overall conclusion on status. | Facts show Framco controlled and treated Woodmancy as an employee on the site. | Facts show no single factor dominates and the parties intended independent contractor status. | Substantial basis exists for the Commission’s denial of relief; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aloha Pools & Spas, Inc. v. Employer’s Ins. of Wausau, 342 Ark. 398, 39 S.W.3d 440 (2000) (multifactor employee vs. independent contractor analysis)
- Arkansas Transit Homes, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty, 341 Ark. 317, 16 S.W.3d 545 (2000) (right of control as central to agency vs. independent contractor)
- D.B. Griffin Warehouse, Inc. v. Sanders, 336 Ark. 456, 986 S.W.2d 836 (1999) (control as principal factor in master-servant analysis)
- Grady v. Estate of Smith, 2011 Ark. App. 568, 385 S.W.3d 854 (2011) (appellate review of weight given to factors in employee/independent contractor determination)
- Cedar Chemical Co. v. Knight, 372 Ark. 233, 273 S.W.3d 473 (2008) (multifactored approach to employee status under Arkansas workers’ comp)
- Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, 344 Ark. 296, 40 S.W.3d 760 (2001) (weight of evidence and credibility in workers’ compensation appeals)
- Silvicraft, Inc. v. Lambert, 10 Ark.App. 28, 661 S.W.2d 403 (1983) (appellate standard for substantial evidence in workplace status cases)
- Sys. Contracting Corp. v. Reeves, 85 Ark.App. 286, 151 S.W.3d 18 (2004) (appellate deference to Commission on weight of evidence)