The principal question involved in this case was whether the petitioner, a trainеd nurse, was an independent contractor or an employee. From the tеstimony adduced in this court the admitted facts are that the petitioner is a registеred nurse and was called to the house of the respondent to treat his wife, whо was under the care of Dr. Tyndall. She was called through St. Mary’s Hospital, it being the custom of the hospital to have a Nurses’ Eegistry, and the nurse who is at the top of the list is sent to care for the patient.
The Eegistry was called by Dr. Tyndall, at the request of thе respondent, who had asked the doctor to secure someone to take care of the respondent’s wife, and the petitioner was sent by the Eegistry tо carry out the duties of a trained nurse in connection with the treatment of the respondent’s wife. On January 16th, 1942, while leaving respondent’s home, after having completed her duties for the day, she slipped on the steps of the respondent’s pоrch, fell and injured herself.
The issue, as I stated, is whether the petitioner was an emрloyee, whether there was a relationship of master and servant, or whethеr the relationship was that of an independent contractor.
My understanding of the distinction of the relationshiр between master and servant and an independent contractor is that, in the former case the employer maintains supervision and control over the оne who is doing the work. In this case, • I find that the respondent did not maintain supervision and сontrol. The petitioner came in for one duty; she did her work as she saw best under thе doctor’s orders. She came in as a professional. While there are sоme facts brought out to the effect that she did certain other things, I am not especially impressed. I think she did those things not as one being ordered, but in the general course of work as a nurse in a household.
I believe that the case of Renouf v. New York Central Railroad, 254 N. Y. 439, is a case in point. The test is the question оf supervision and control, and, from the evidence of the petitioner, it would аppear that the respondent did not exercise supervision and contrоl. Petitioner testified her duties were the actual care of the patient. In her testimony she says, “I don’t do housework; I am a trained nurse. The custom is, when a nurse is needed, they call the hospital. I didn’t know the respondent. I was hired through the registry. I went over and took over the case. I went ahead with regular nursing duties, I was under the doctor’s orders, not supposed to do any housework-—simply supervised the patient—fоod, only eared for the patient in her room. I supervised. I prepared my own meals and the patient’s at night, and had dinner with the family.”
So it does appear that a trained nurse comes under the category of a business. If you called a plumber into your home because there was repair work to be done, you wоuld simply tell him what is to be done and he does the work in
T find that the relationship in this case is one of independent contractor and hereby dismiss the petition filed in this cause.
Chaei.es E. Corbin,
Deputy Commissioner.