DONALD D. ROBERSON, Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (P.I. & I. Motor Express, Inc., Appellant)
No. 102723
Supreme Court of Illinois
Opinion filed March 22, 2007
225 Ill. 2d 159
Michael P. Glisson, of Williamson, Webster, Falb & Glisson, of Alton, for appellee.
JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Freeman, Kilbride, Garman, Karmeier, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
BACKGROUND
Roberson worked for P.I. & I. as an employеe truck driver from March to May 2000, when he bought his own truck. On May 15, 2000, Roberson signed an “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONTRACT” with P.I. & I. Under the contract, Roberson would receive 78% of the gross revenue received by P.I. & I. for each load in exchange for the services of a driver and the equipment listed in Appendix A to the contract—namely, his truck. Appendix A provided:
“P.I. & I. MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. hereby receipts for the equipment hereinafter described, this receipt being executed pursuant to [federal regulations] and to the extent as therein specified and directed P.I. & I. MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. shall during the duration of this receipt have the exclusive possession, control and use of the equipment and to the extent required by the Motor Carrier Act, P.I. & I. MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. shall be deemed to have assumed complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment in the transportation of the commodities; provided however, that this receipt shall not affect the legal relations between P.I. & I. MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. and the Contractor, his аgents or employees as set forth in this Independent Contractor Contract to which this receipt is an appendix ***.”
At its discretion, P.I. & I. could advance monies to Roberson or pay for items which were his responsibility; such monies would then be deducted from Roberson’s weekly settlements. Upon “rеasonable request,” P.I. & I. could agree to “trip lease,” or broker, Roberson’s truck to another motor carrier, in accordance with federal regulations and on three conditions: (1) the other motor carrier appeared on P.I. & I.’s approved list; (2) Roberson obtained a release number from P.I. & I. before the trip; and (3) P.I. & I. had no freight available to load. If these conditions were not met, P.I. & I. would not agree to trip lease the truck.
The contract specifically provided that it was “not intended to create an employee/employer relationship” between Roberson and P.I. & I., and further that P.I. & I. “shall have no direction or control” of Roberson “except in the results to be obtained.” The parties agreed that the contract should be “interpreted in accordance with this expressed intent.” Either party could terminate the contract at any time upon written notice.
Appendix C to the contract was an “EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONTRACT” under which Roberson leased a trailer from P.I. & I. Roberson was required to pay as rent 10%
On January 5, 2001, Roberson left home for P.I. & I.’s Granite City terminal to pick up a load. He then drove to Bethlehem Steel in northwest Indiana, unloaded the vehicle, and reloaded it with two large steel coils. The coils were covered with a tarp and secured with chains and ratchet binders. Instead of delivering these coils to Red Bud, Illinois, Roberson returned home because he was experiencing mechanical problems with his truck. Roberson advised P.I. & I. of the delay, and P.I. & I. instructed him to deliver the load as soon as possible. On January 11, he left home to deliver the load. In Red Bud, Roberson removed the tarp and chains from the steel coils, and began to unfasten the ratchet binders. As he was pushing on a ratchet, it gave way. Roberson tumbled forward, fell into the side of one of the coils, and landed on his back. Roberson felt pain, but continued to work, believing that it would go away. Though he intended to sleep in his truck at P.I. & I.’s terminal and pick up a new load the next day, Roberson’s pain increased, and he again returned home. The next morning, he visited an emergency room, complaining of pain in his lower back, shoulder, and neck, and numbness in his right leg.
Emergency room records indicate that Roberson injured his back while unloading his truck. According to the initial nurse evaluation form, as Roberson was
On January 12, Roberson visited Dr. Assa Mayersdorf, a neurologist with whom he had made an appointment before the accident to discuss nonconvulsive seizure episodes. Dr. Mayersdorf’s office notes indicated that “[i]n the last two days,” Roberson had taken Vicodin and Flexeril “because of low back pain which happened when he slept [sic] in the truck.”
On January 15, Roberson visited his physician, Dr. Jose Villegas. In his evidence deposition, Dr. Villegas stated that Roberson claimed he injured his shoulder and back four days earlier while ratcheting a load of steel. Roberson had stiffness and generalized pain in the lower back area, as well as numbness in his right leg. Dr. Villegas’ initial diagnosis was lumbosacral spine and cervical neck strain. Dr. Villegas again examined Roberson on January 29, 2001. Roberson stated that his pain had continued and had become more localized. He had trouble sleeping and experienced tingling and numbness in his legs. Dr. Villegas ordered physical therapy and a CT scan. According to Dr. Villegas, the CT scan showed that Roberson had a herniated disc in his lower back, which was consistent with his symptoms. Dr. Villegas reexamined Roberson on February 9 and 28, 2001. On February 9, Roberson showed improvement, and on February 28, he
Roberson filed a worker’s compensation claim on February 8, 2001. At the arbitration hearing, Roberson testified regarding his relationship with P.I. & I. According to Roberson, he would telephone P.I. & I. each morning to see if any loads were available. Before Roberson began hauling a load, P.I. & I. required him to perform pretrip inspections, and to keep and turn in a logbook bearing P.I. & I.’s name and logo. Roberson asserted that on several occasions P.I. & I. had given him a “hot load” to deliver and return back as quickly as he could.
Roberson acknowledged that he could choose his routes and where to obtain fuel or repairs. P.I. & I. provided him a debit card that he could use at any truck stop to buy fuel, pay for repairs, or obtain cash advances, and these expenses were later deducted from his weekly settlements. According to Roberson, P.I. & I. helped him secure “bobtail and dead head” liability insurance coverage, and the premiums were also deducted from his settlements. Additionally, before the accident P.I. & I. deducted workers’ compensation insurance coverage premiums from his settlements. Roberson stated that P.I. & I. stopped withholding taxes from his settlements after he entered the independent contractor contract. P.I. & I. provided a camera with which to photograph an accident scene or a damaged load.
Roberson further stated that once he started driving for P.I. & I., he did not make deliveries for other trucking companies. He explained that he could have obtained authorization to haul loads for other companies, but that
P.I. & I. performed an annual review of Roberson’s work. A September 17, 2001, letter from P.I. & I. Safety Director Patty Cardwell congratulated Roberson on his professionalism and quality effort. A copy of this letter was placed in Roberson’s “personnel file for future reference.” A December 3, 2001, letter from Cardwell informed Roberson that his independent contractor’s contract had been cancelled by P.I. & I. effective November 30, 2001.
P.I. & I. presented the evidence deposition of its president, Joseph Kerola. Kerola explained:
“Independent contractors in our industry are gentlemen who own their own tractors or tractors and trailers. We pay them a percentage of the revenue they generate to provide the tractor, the trailer.
They’re also responsible, they purchase their own license plates, pay their own fuel taxes, buy their own fuel, their own tires, tarps, maintenance. The money we pay them, which is on a 1099, is very simply their percentage, and they pay all their own bills for that out of the money we pay them. As an independent contractor, that is a *** long-term lease to us, they primarily, then, work for us. There’s nothing in there that prohibits them from working for other people as long as they let us know, and that’s
done because the Department of Transportation requires a motor carrier, a licensed motor carrier to keep certain records as far as driver’s licenses, random drug or alcohol tests and some other things like that, so they need to be leased to a motor carrier primarily. *** Also, the work we have, if they choose not to work for a week or so, then they can choose not to do that. They are totally their own boss.”
Kerola stated that when Roberson worked as an employee driver, P.I. & I. had “100-percent control” over his work. But as an independent contractor, Roberson was an “independent businessman,” making his own decisions.
Kerola agreed that employee drivers are a major expense. P.I. & I. has very few employee drivers—“one or two at the most“—and 150 independent contractors. P.I. & I. also has very few trucks, preferring instead to lease them from independent contractors. Kerola stated that P.I. & I. requires only that its independent contractors comply with Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, though P.I. & I. does ask its drivers “tо call in daily to report their status.”
According to Kerola, P.I. & I. does not require independent contractors to wear uniforms, and they may fuel and repair their trucks at their discretion. Their routes are also left to their discretion, as long as they deliver loads in a timely manner and keep P.I. & I.’s customers happy. Kerola added that when drivers are given a load, they are also given “the parameters with which that load needs hauled.” The drivers may then accept or reject the load. “But if they accept it,” stated Kerola, “we expect them to follow standard procedures.” On this point, Kerola distinguished employees from independent contractors. P.I. & I. takes some control over the routes that employee or company drivers take; to a degree, these drivers would be “directed on what routes are acceptable and unacceptable because of the relationship with them and them driving a truck [for which] wе
Kerola stated that independent contractors do not need written permission for trip leases. Because P.I. & I. is the “primary lease” and keeps records of its drivers, independent contractors must notify P.I. & I. that they wish to work for another company. P.I. & I. then sends a form to that company stating that the driver’s records are in its possession and in order. Kerola further stated that drivers primarily leased to P.I. & I., like Roberson, are required by the DOT to keep a logbook, so the DOT can determine whether they are complying with regulations regarding “hours of service.” P.I. & I. tries to ensure that its drivers—both employees and independent contractors—satisfy these regulations. “If not,” stated Kerola, “we do what we need to do to get them in compliance.”
P.I. & I. does not withhold taxes for independent contractors. According to Kerola, P.I. & I. offers independent contractors the opportunity to participate in certain programs to save them money. Independent contractors may purchase occupational hazard insurance coverage, as well as equipment insurance coverage, through P.I. & I. Kerola described these as “pass-through” programs; the insurer covers the independent contractors directly; P.I. & I. simply groups them together to obtain more affordable coverage for them.
P.I. & I. also presented the evidence deposition of its regional manager, Charles Butts. Butts stated that when Roberson was an employee driver, he was required to report to work between 8 and 10 o’clock each morning. When he became an independent cоntractor, he was not
According to Butts, Roberson was primarily leased to P.I. & I. That is, Roberson’s primary business was with P.I. & I. Butts insisted that P.I. & I. does not require pretrip inspections, but the DOT does—for any drivers, both employees and independent contractors. The DOT also requires independent contractors to post logos of the company for which they are driving on their trucks. Like Kerola, Butts insisted that P.I. & I. did not enforce the contract provision requiring written permission for trip leases. Roberson was “required to or asked to call in and just tell us that he was going to” trip lease.
Butts stated that the annual review was required by P.I. & I.’s liability insurer to determine whether its drivers had valid licenses and any unreported tickets or accidents. P.I. & I. was required by the DOT to insure any truck, whether owned by the company or an independent contractor. Other insurance—cargo or worker’s compensation—would be the responsibility of the independent contractor.
The arbitrator found that Roberson was not P.I. & I.’s employee and that his injury was not work-related. The Industrial Commission reversed. Relying on Ware v. Industrial Comm‘n, 318 Ill. App. 3d 1117 (2000), the Commission found that P.I. & I. “both had and exercised a right to control [Roberson’s] work activities.” Appendix A of the independent contractor contract provided P.I. &
The Commission added that the record contained “other indicia of control.” The Commission first addressed the provision in the parties’ contract stating that P.I. & I. shall have no direction or control over the contractor “except in the results to be obtained.” The Commission characterized this as “a significant exception” because it could be interpreted to mean that an employer could dictate to a contractor the terms of delivery, and Roberson testified that he received all of his delivery instructions from P.I. & I. The Commission also noted that, while Roberson could “trip lease” with P.I. & I.’s consent, he opted to drive exclusively for P.I. & I. because its trip lease requirements were so onerous. Roberson, thus, was primarily leased to P.I. & I.
The Commission further highlighted the fact that Roberson was required to display P.I. & I. logos on his equipment and to perform pretrip inspections. The Commission acknowledged that these requirements were imposed by DOT regulations, but P.I. & I.’s compliance with these regulations did not diminish its control over Roberson’s work. The Commission also found that the services Roberson provided for P.I. & I. constituted a regular part of its business: “It is nоt as if [Roberson] was an outside contractor brought in to perform a special service.” The Commission finally likened the parties’ relationship to employment at-will because the contract could be terminated upon written notice alone, absent any allegation of its breach.
Additionally, the Commission found that Roberson suffered a work-related injury. Roberson provided “a very detailed account of his accident,” which was consistent with the history he gave at the emergency room. The
P.I. & I. sought judicial review. The trial court found that the Commission’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and reinstated the arbitrator’s dеcision. Roberson appealed, and the appellate court reversed. Regarding the issue of whether Roberson was P.I. & I.’s employee, the appellate court initially noted that this determination is fact specific. The appellate court stated that here
“[t]he parties’ relationship contained elements of both independent contractor and employment status. Factors such as the manner in which claimant was paid; the parties’ labeling of their relationship; claimant providing his own tractor and trailer; claimant paying for his own expenses, such as insurance and fuel; and the fact that claimant could refuse loads and choose his own routes indicate an independent contractor status.
On the other hand, there were significant elements of control present here. Most importantly, the contract gave employer exclusive possession, use, and control of thе equipment. Although the contract contained a caveat that such exclusive possession did not affect the parties’ legal relationship, the caveat is merely a labeling provision, which is a factor of lesser weight. The fact of exclusivity and control remained.” No. 5—05—0279WC (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).
The appellate court further noted that P.I. & I. controlled many aspects of Roberson’s work. He was required to display P.I. & I. logos, to communicate with P.I. & I. regularly, and to meet P.I. & I.’s pick-up and delivery schedule. According to the appellate court, Roberson did not work for other companies because it was too much trouble: “The parties contract allowed [Rober-
Regarding the issue of whether Roberson’s injury was work-related, the appellate court again concluded that the Commission’s finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. According to the appellate court, the Commission found that, despite some inconsistencies in Roberson’s version of the events leading to his injuries, he essentially gave a plausible account of the accident.
On denial of rehearing, all five justices of the appellate panel filed a statement that the case involves a substantial question warranting consideration by this court. We allowed P.I. & I.’s petition for leave to appeal. See
ANALYSIS
In worker’s compensation cases the Industrial Commission is the ultimate decisionmaker. Cushing v. Industrial Comm‘n, 50 Ill. 2d 179, 181-82 (1971). The Commission must weigh the evidence presented at the arbitration hearing and determine where the preponderance of that evidence lies. See Steiner v. Industrial Comm‘n, 101 Ill. 2d 257, 260 (1984); Wagner Castings Co. v. Industrial Comm‘n, 241 Ill. App. 3d 584, 594 (1993) (“it is solely within the province of the Commission” to weigh the evidence (emphasis in original)). A reviewing court will not set aside the Commission’s decision unless its analysis is contrary to law (see Butler Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Comm‘n, 85 Ill. 2d 213, 216 (1981)) or its fact determinations are against the manifest weight of the evidence (see Shockley v. Industrial Comm‘n, 75 Ill. 2d 189, 193 (1979)). Fact determinations are against
This case, as framed in the appellate court, presents two issues: (1) whether the Commission’s determination that an employment relationship existed between Roberson and P.I. & I. was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (2) whether the Commission’s determination that Roberson’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
In its petition,2 P.I. & I. attempts to recast the first issue. According to P.I. & I., the appellate court’s employment-relationship analysis conflicts with that of Earley v. Industrial Comm‘n, 197 Ill. App. 3d 309 (1990), in several respects, including the effect of federal regulations on the relationship between P.I. & I. and Roberson. P.I. & I. asserts that on these questions of law our review shоuld proceed de novo. Roberson responds that the appellate court’s analysis was consistent with Earley, and the primary question is still whether he was an employee of P.I. & I. Roberson asserts that on that fact issue our review should be deferential. Because the Commission’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, argues Roberson, this court should affirm.
An employment relationship is a prerequisite for an award of benefits under the Act, and the question of whether a person is an employee remains “one of the most *** vexatious in the law of compensation.” O‘Brien v. Industrial Comm‘n, 48 Ill. 2d 304, 307 (1971). The difficulty arises not from the complexity of the applicable legal rules, but from the fact-specific nature of the inquiry. No rule has been, or could be, adopted to govern
“[B]ecause the theory of [worker‘s] compensation legislation is that the cost of industrial accidents should be borne by the consumer as part of the cost of the product, this court has held that a worker whose services form a regular part of the cost of the product, and whose work does not constitute a separate business which allows a distinct channel through which the cost of an accident may flow, is presumptively within the area of intended protection of the compensation act.” Ragler Motor Sales v. Industrial Comm‘n, 93 Ill. 2d 66, 71 (1982).
No single factor is determinative, and the significance of these factors will change depending on the work involved. Luby v. Industrial Comm‘n, 82 Ill. 2d 353, 358-59 (1980). The determination rests on the totality of the circumstances.
The right to control the manner of the work is often called the most important consideration. See Bauer v. Industrial Comm‘n, 51 Ill. 2d 169, 172 (1972); Horwitz v. Holabird & Root, 212 Ill. 2d 1, 13 (2004) (“An independent contractor is defined by the level of control over the manner of work performance“), citing Hartley v. Red Ball Transit Co., 344 Ill. 534, 539 (1931). Discussing
More than 50 years ago, interstate motor carriers shielded themselves from liability for their drivers’ negligence by leasing trucks from independent contractors. Morris v. JTM Materials, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 28, 37 (Tex. Ct. App.—Fort Worth 2002). Such arrangements invariably led to abuses that threatened public safety, as unscrupulous motor carriers leased inexpensive, and unsаfe, equipment from shallow-pocket drivers. Harris v. Mitchell, 358 N.J. Super. 504, 507-08, 818 A.2d 443, 445 (2003). In 1956, Congress amended the Interstate Commerce Act and authorized the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to prescribe regulations governing leased equipment. See
“The Secretary [of Transportation] may require a motor carrier providing [interstate] transportation *** that uses motor vehicles not owned by it to transport property under *** an arrangement with another party to *** have control of and be responsible for operating those motor vehicles in compliance with requirements prescribed by the Secretary on safety of operations and equipment, and with other applicable law as if the motor vehicles were owned by the motor carrier.”
49 U.S.C. § 14102(a)(4) (2000).
The DOT requires a motor vehicle lease to provide that “the authorized carrier lessee shall have exclusive possession, control, and use of the equipment for the duration of the lease. The lease shall further provide
Pursuant to this regulation, some courts have characterized independent contractor lessors as “statutory employees” of motor carrier lessees. See, e.g., Harris, 358 N.J. Super. at 509, 818 A.2d at 446, quoting Cox v. Bond Transportation, Inc., 53 N.J. 186, 201, 249 A.2d 579, 587 (1969); Tamez v. Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc., 155 S.W.3d 564, 573 (Tex. Ct. App.—San Antonio 2004) (“an interstate carrier is vicariously liable as a matter of law under the [regulations] for the negligence of its statutory employee drivers“). This is a legislative fiction, of course, intended to shift responsibility for the safe use of leased equipment to the motor carrier in order to protect the public. Harris, 358 N.J. Super. at 510, 818 A.2d at 446. The statutory scheme created by Congress plainly accepts a distinction between employees and independent contractors. See Pouliot v. Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc., 292 F. Supp. 2d 374, 383 (D. Conn. 2003)
“Nothing in the provisions required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section is intended to affect whether the lessor or driver provided by the lessor is an independent contractor or an employee of the authorized carrier lessee. An independent contractor relationship may exist when a carrier complies with
49 U.S.C. 14102 and the attendant administrative requirements.”
In short, the regulation requiring a motor carrier to have exclusive possession, control, and use of leased equipment does not mandate that the driver is an employee for all purposes. “While a lessee cannot free itself of its federally imposed duties when protection of the public is at stake, the federal requirements are not so radically intrusive as to absolve lessors *** of otherwise existing obligations under applicable state tort law doctrines or under contracts allocating financial risk among private parties.” (Emphasis added.) Carolina Casualty Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 595 F.2d 128, 138 (3d Cir. 1979). Freedom of cоntract requires that parties may structure their relationship as they see fit, provided they do not neglect the requirements of federal law. See Riddle v. Trans-Cold Express, Inc., 530 F. Supp. 186, 189-90 (S.D. Ill. 1982) (“the lessor and lessee of equipment operated under an I.C.C. certificate are free to agree, by contract, as to rights affecting their relationship, so long as their duty to the general public is not diminished“). Compliance with federal regulations is merely a factor that may be considered in a common law analysis of whether a driver is an employee of a trucking company. Universal Am-Can, Ltd. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 563 Pa. 480, 489, 762 A.2d 328, 332 (2000); Toomer v. United Resin Adhesives, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 219, 229 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
Ware and Earley are consistent on this point. Both cases state that contract language required by federal regulations is a consideration in determining whether the trucking company had the right to control the driver’s work. See Ware, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 1123; Earley, 197 Ill. App. 3d at 314. These cases, however, reach different results on different facts. P.I. & I.’s argument thus reduces to simply this: the Commission relied upоn Ware, when it should have followed Earley.
In Ware, a truck driver was injured while making delivery for a trucking company. At the time of the accident, the driver and the company were operating under an “Equipment Lease Agreement Between Independent Contractor and Carrier.” The agreement provided that the driver would lease his truck to the company in return for a percentage of the gross revenue that the company received for each load. Under the agreement, the company would have “exclusive possession, control, and use” of the truck “for the limited purpose of complying with state and federal transportation law.”
The driver was required to shave and occasionally to wear a uniform, and the company arranged for his work. The company would issue a travel order, instructing the driver what load he would be hauling, when to pick it up, and when and where to deliver it. The travel order included route information, which the driver was not required to follow unless he was hauling hazardous materials. The company dictated how the driver should operate and maintain his truck, particularly in cold weather. The driver was responsible for inspecting the truck and its trailer, and he was required to notify the company if he had an accident. The company’s logo was displayed on the side of the driver’s truck, and it was
The driver shouldered all the costs associated with operating the truck. The company did not withhold income or social security taxes for the driver. The company paid for liability insurance on the truck while it was in its service and for “bobtail” insurance on the truck while it was not in its service; the cost of the bobtail insurance was charged to the driver. Under the lease, the driver was required to procure worker’s compensation insurаnce, and he was allowed to enroll in an occupational accident plan through the company. The lease allowed the driver to hire employees and to use his truck for other firms, subject to the company’s approval. The lease could be terminated by either party upon written notice.
An arbitrator determined that the driver was an employee of the company, and the Commission reversed. The trial court confirmed this decision, but the appellate court found that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Ware, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 1127. The appellate court concluded that the evidence indicated that the company both had and exercised a right to control the driver’s work. Ware, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 1123. The court recognized that the company exercised this control to ensure it complied with federal regulations or customer demands, but held that the motivation for its actions was “irrelevant.” Ware, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 1123. The court stated that a showing of control may arise ” ‘by introducing detailed regulations *** and proving that the employer was personally responsible for their observance.’ ” Ware, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 1123, quoting 3 A. Larson & L. Larson, Workers’ Compensation Law § 61.05(3), at 61—9 (2000).
The appellate court further stated that the driver’s
The appellate court declined to give much weight to the facts that the contract designated the driver an independent contractor and that the company did not withhold taxes. Ware, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 1127. Considering the factors in their totality, the court stated that “strong evidence exists that [the driver] was an employee,” and the Commission’s decision to the contrary was against the manifest weight of that evidence. Ware, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 1126. See also Peesel v. Industrial Comm‘n, 224 Ill. App. 3d 711 (1992) (holding that the Commission’s decision that a driver was not an employee was against the manifest weight of the evidence).
In Earley, a truck driver was injured while making a delivery for a trucking company. The driver and the company were parties to a one-year equipment lease. Under the lease, the driver would provide the truck, the trailer, and a driver, in return for a percentage of the gross revenue for each load that he hauled. From these
The driver could hire employees, but they had to be approved by the company before they could haul any loads. Either the company would call the driver with work, or the driver would call the company for work. The company told the driver where and when to pick up and deliver loads, but the driver chose his route. The driver was instructed to notify the company if he had an accident. He primarily worked for the company, but he was permitted to trip lease. Trip leases were arranged through the company.
The arbitrator determined that the driver was not an employee of the company, and the Commission affirmed. The trial court confirmed the Commission’s decision, and the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court initially noted that the driver contended the Commission’s decision was erroneous as a matter of law, citing federal regulations. Earley, 197 Ill. App. 3d at 314. The court stated:
“The ICC’s rules *** require a lease agreement, such as the one here, to include a provision that the authorized carrier has exclusive possession, control, and use of the leased equipment for the duration of the lease. Therefore, because Federal law requires [the company] to have the exclusive possession and control provisions in the lease, [the driver] argues that this confers upon [the company] the right to control the work ***, thereby creating an employee status *** as a matter of law. While the ICC rules and regulations are a factor to consider in determining a claimant’s employment status, these rules are not conclusive ***.” Earley, 197 Ill. App. 3d at 314.
The appellate court then stated that some facts
The court then considered the nexus between the driver’s work and the company’s business: “In trucking cases such as this, this is a close consideration.” Earley, 197 Ill. App. 3d at 316. The driver and thе company were in the same business: transporting shipments for profit. Earley, 197 Ill. App. 3d at 316. Regarding the right to discharge, the appellate court noted that the lease could be terminated by either party for any reason. Earley, 197 Ill. App. 3d at 316.
The lease labeled the driver as an independent contractor, but according to the court, this factor was controversial: “It has been held that the label given by the parties in a written agreement will not be dispositive of the employment status, but that the facts of the case must be considered to determine what the individual’s employment status is. [Citation.] Further, although a contractual agreement is a factor to consider, it does not, as a matter of law, determine an individual’s employ-
Given the competing inferences arising from the facts, it was the Commission’s province to determine the driver’s employment status. Earley, 197 Ill. App. 3d at 318. The court concluded that the Commission’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Earley, 197 Ill. App. 3d at 318.
Certainly, the case before us is similar in some respects to Earley, just as it is similar in some respects to Ware. But the question before us is not whether the Commission’s decision tracked one case when it should have tracked another. The question is whether the Commission’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We turn to that evidence.
The contract between Roberson and P.I. & I. provided that the parties did not intend to create an employment relationship, and both parties could terminate the contract at any time upon written notice. Appendix A of the lease gave P.I. & I. the exclusive possession, control, and use of Roberson’s truck, but the contract stated that P.I. & I. had no control over Roberson, “except in the results to be obtained.” That is, P.I. & I. did not dictate Roberson’s routes, as long as, according to Kerola, “he delivers [loads] in a timely manner that keeps our customers happy.” The contract required Roberson to operate his truck in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Roberson testified that he was required to
The contract stated that P.I. & I. could allow trip leases if it preapproved the other motor carrier, issued a release to Roberson, and had no freight available for Roberson to haul. Butts testified that P.I. & I. does not enforce the contract requirement of written permission, and Kerola testified that P.I. & I. does not require written permission for trip leases. But Kerola added that independent contractors must notify P.I. & I. that they wish to work for another motor carrier. P.I. & I., as the “primary lease” of these drivers, then must send a form to the other carrier stating that the drivers’ records are in order. Roberson testified that he did not drive for other companies because he found the authorization process too burdensome. The record is unclear whether Roberson actually had trip leases with two other companies while he was primarily leased to P.I. & I.
Butts testified that Roberson was not required to report to work each morning, but Kerola testified that P.I. & I. asks its drivers “to call in daily to report their status.” Roberson cоnfirmed this, stating that he telephoned P.I. & I. each morning to see if any loads were available. Roberson also testified that P.I. & I. occasion-
Roberson was paid a percentage of the gross revenue that P.I. & I. received for the loads he delivered. From his weekly settlements Roberson paid the costs and expenses of operating his truck, as well as his own taxes. Additionally, he paid for his own worker’s compensation and liability insurance coverage, though he obtained such coverage through P.I. & I. P.I. & I. provides such services only to drivers primarily doing business with the company. P.I. & I. also provided Roberson with a debit card, which he could use to purchase fuel, pay for repairs, or obtain cash advances, which were later deducted from his settlements.
Roberson had his own truсk, but he leased a trailer from P.I. & I. He not only paid rent on the trailer—10% of the gross revenue for each load, or approximately one-eighth of his compensation—he also maintained it to P.I. & I.’s specifications. See 3 A. Larson & L. Larson, Workers’ Compensation Law § 61.07(3), at 61—19 (2006) (“control may be realistically inferred even when the employer owns only a part of the equipment, if that part is of considerable size and value“). Finally, Roberson’s work fell entirely within the scope of P.I. & I.’s business. P.I. & I., for economic reasons, used independent contractor drivers almost exclusively, and Roberson was primarily leased to P.I. & I. for nearly eight months before his accident. See 3 A. Larson & L. Larson, Workers’ Compensation Law § 61.07(5), at 61—21 (2006) (“there is a growing tendency to classify owner-drivers of trucks as employees when they perform continuous service which is an integral part of the employer’s business“).
This is a close case. The same reasoning employed in Earley to uphold the Commission’s decision leads us to
With respect to the second issue, P.I. & I. argues that the appellate court erred in concluding that the Commission’s decision on causation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. According to P.I. & I., the record does not support Roberson’s testimony regarding his work and injury. P.I. & I. points to various discrepancies between Roberson’s testimony and the record. Roberson predictably responds that the appellate court did not err.
As the appellate court correctly observed, Roberson’s testimony provided a detailed account of this accident, consistent with the history he gave at the emergency room on the morning after the accident, and to Dr. Villegas four days later. Roberson testified that he notified P.I. & I. of this accident, and Kerola and Butts did not dispute his testimony. The Commission nоted a “puzzling inconsistency” in Dr. Mayersdorf’s records, but the statement in Dr. Mayersdorf’s records that Roberson hurt his back sleeping in his truck is neither puzzling nor inconsistent. The emergency room records indicate that Roberson was prescribed Vicodin and Flexeril after he slipped in his truck. Dr. Mayersdorf’s records indicate that Roberson was prescribed those same painkillers after he “slept” in his truck two days earlier. Dr. Villegas testified that it was unlikely that Roberson could herniate a disc, as shown by the CT scan, in his sleep. Absent any evidence that Roberson slept in his truck on the day of the accident, it seems likely that “slept” is a typographical or transcription error for “slipped.” The findings of fact made by the Commission were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
For the reasons that we have stated, we affirm.
Affirmed.