MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 30 2020, 10:40 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Joseph Banasiak Jeffrey Sturm Highland, Indiana George C. Patrick & Associates Crown Point, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
1st Response Automotive January 30, 2020 Repair, 1st Response Court of Appeals Case No. Towing & Recovery, 19A-EX-1571 and Roger Jackson, Jr., Appeal from the Worker’s Appellants-Defendants, Compensation Board of Indiana The Honorable Linda Hamilton, v. Chairman Cause No. Brian Ard, C-228727 Appellee-Plaintiff
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-EX-1571 | January 30, 2020 Page 1 of 7 [1] 1st Response Automotive Repair (1st Response Repair), 1st Response Towing
& Recovery (1st Response Towing), and Roger Jackson, Jr. (collectively, “the
Appellants”), appeal the decision of the Worker’s Compensation Board of
Indiana (the Board) deeming Brian Ard to be an employee of the Appellants,
arguing that Ard should have been deemed an independent contractor. Finding
no error in the Board’s determination, we affirm.
Facts [2] Roger Jackson, Sr., hired Ard to work for 1st Response Repair and 1st
Response Towing in November 2012. Ard “was hired to do automotive repair,
tow truck repair, and perform such other mechanical repairs as were needed by
[the Appellants].” Appellants’ App. Vol. II p. 9. Jackson, Jr., testified that he
formed 1st Response Repair and 1st Response Towing and that Jackson, Sr.,
managed the business “day to day[.]” Id. at 12.
[3] Ard was initially paid in cash, but was later paid by check every Wednesday.
The Appellants billed customers at $55 per hour, out of which Ard received
$25. Moreover, “there was no employment agreement between any of [the
Appellants] and [Ard].” Id. at 12.
[4] Ard worked Monday through Saturday and used tools owned or provided by
the Appellants to complete repairs. “[Ard] testified that he did not have any
control over others who worked for [the Appellants] and did not set his own
hours.” Id. at 11. Over the course of Ard’s employment, the Appellants ended
up purchasing parts and supplies that Ard brought to his job. Jackson, Sr., was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-EX-1571 | January 30, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Ard’s supervisor and frequently gave him directions about the order in which
jobs were to be done and the specific type of work that was to be done. Ard
reported to Jackson, Sr., for all work-related issues. All repair work took place
at the Appellants’ shop in Merrillville. Additionally, Ard testified that he never
received nor completed tax documents from the Appellants, including 1099 and
W-2 forms. There is evidence that Ard filled out tax documents only for the
2014 fiscal year.
[5] On January 14, 2015, Ard fell while working in the Appellants’ auto shop,
“breaking his left femur[.]” Id. at 9. On February 2, 2015, Ard filed an
adjustment of claim with the Board. Additionally, during the pendency of his
worker’s compensation claim, Ard filed a separate civil complaint for damages
on July 1, 2016.
[6] After a single member of the Board issued an order on the matter on October
14, 2018, the full Board set the matter for rehearing for April 29, 2019. Soon
thereafter, on June 12, 2019, the Board issued an order declaring that “[Ard]
was an employee of [the Appellants] at the time of the injury on January 14,
2015[.]” Id. at 13. The Board then determined that:
[Ard] is entitled to receive, and [the Appellants] are jointly and severally obligated to pay, all statutory benefits . . . including all medical expenses incurred as a result of the accident on January 14, 2015.
Id. at 14. The Appellants now appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-EX-1571 | January 30, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Discussion and Decision [7] The Appellants’ sole argument on appeal is that the Board erred when it
determined that Ard was their employee. The Appellants contend that the
Board should have deemed Ard to be an independent contractor because (1)
Ard failed to prove his status as an employee; and (2) Ard allegedly admitted in
a separate civil lawsuit that he was an independent contractor.
[8] Our review of decisions coming from the Board is well established:
The Worker’s Compensation Board, as the trier of fact, has a duty to issue findings of fact that reveal its analysis of the evidence and that are specific enough to permit intelligent review of its decision. Triplett v. USX Corp., 893 N.E.2d 1107, 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “In reviewing a worker’s compensation decision, an appellate court is bound by the factual determinations of the Board and may not disturb them unless the evidence is undisputed and leads inescapably to a contrary conclusion.” Christopher R. Brown, D.D.S., Inc. v. Decatur Cty Mem’l Hosp., 892 N.E.2d 642, 646 (Ind. 2008). We examine the record only to determine whether there is substantial evidence and reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom to support [the Board’s] findings and conclusion. Id. We will not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. Triplett, 893 N.E.2d at 1116. “As to the Board’s interpretation of the law, an appellate court employs a deferential standard of review of the interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with its enforcement in light of its expertise in the given area.” Brown, 892 N.E.2d at 646. The Board will only be reversed if it incorrectly interpreted [the statute]. Id.
Wright Tree Serv. v. Hernandez, 907 N.E.2d 183, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
[9] Pursuant to the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act, the term “employee” is
defined as any “person, including a minor, in the service of another, under any
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-EX-1571 | January 30, 2020 Page 4 of 7 contract of hire or apprenticeship, written or implied, except one whose
employment is both casual and not in the usual course of the trade, business,
occupation, or profession of the employer.” Ind. Code § 22-3-6-1(b).
[10] To determine whether an individual is an employee or an independent
contractor, we analyze the individual’s relationship with the employer under
the following ten factors:
(a) the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work;
(b) whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;
(c) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision;
(d) the skill required in the particular occupation;
(e) whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work;
(f) the length of time for which the person is employed;
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 30 2020, 10:40 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Joseph Banasiak Jeffrey Sturm Highland, Indiana George C. Patrick & Associates Crown Point, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
1st Response Automotive January 30, 2020 Repair, 1st Response Court of Appeals Case No. Towing & Recovery, 19A-EX-1571 and Roger Jackson, Jr., Appeal from the Worker’s Appellants-Defendants, Compensation Board of Indiana The Honorable Linda Hamilton, v. Chairman Cause No. Brian Ard, C-228727 Appellee-Plaintiff
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-EX-1571 | January 30, 2020 Page 1 of 7 [1] 1st Response Automotive Repair (1st Response Repair), 1st Response Towing
& Recovery (1st Response Towing), and Roger Jackson, Jr. (collectively, “the
Appellants”), appeal the decision of the Worker’s Compensation Board of
Indiana (the Board) deeming Brian Ard to be an employee of the Appellants,
arguing that Ard should have been deemed an independent contractor. Finding
no error in the Board’s determination, we affirm.
Facts [2] Roger Jackson, Sr., hired Ard to work for 1st Response Repair and 1st
Response Towing in November 2012. Ard “was hired to do automotive repair,
tow truck repair, and perform such other mechanical repairs as were needed by
[the Appellants].” Appellants’ App. Vol. II p. 9. Jackson, Jr., testified that he
formed 1st Response Repair and 1st Response Towing and that Jackson, Sr.,
managed the business “day to day[.]” Id. at 12.
[3] Ard was initially paid in cash, but was later paid by check every Wednesday.
The Appellants billed customers at $55 per hour, out of which Ard received
$25. Moreover, “there was no employment agreement between any of [the
Appellants] and [Ard].” Id. at 12.
[4] Ard worked Monday through Saturday and used tools owned or provided by
the Appellants to complete repairs. “[Ard] testified that he did not have any
control over others who worked for [the Appellants] and did not set his own
hours.” Id. at 11. Over the course of Ard’s employment, the Appellants ended
up purchasing parts and supplies that Ard brought to his job. Jackson, Sr., was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-EX-1571 | January 30, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Ard’s supervisor and frequently gave him directions about the order in which
jobs were to be done and the specific type of work that was to be done. Ard
reported to Jackson, Sr., for all work-related issues. All repair work took place
at the Appellants’ shop in Merrillville. Additionally, Ard testified that he never
received nor completed tax documents from the Appellants, including 1099 and
W-2 forms. There is evidence that Ard filled out tax documents only for the
2014 fiscal year.
[5] On January 14, 2015, Ard fell while working in the Appellants’ auto shop,
“breaking his left femur[.]” Id. at 9. On February 2, 2015, Ard filed an
adjustment of claim with the Board. Additionally, during the pendency of his
worker’s compensation claim, Ard filed a separate civil complaint for damages
on July 1, 2016.
[6] After a single member of the Board issued an order on the matter on October
14, 2018, the full Board set the matter for rehearing for April 29, 2019. Soon
thereafter, on June 12, 2019, the Board issued an order declaring that “[Ard]
was an employee of [the Appellants] at the time of the injury on January 14,
2015[.]” Id. at 13. The Board then determined that:
[Ard] is entitled to receive, and [the Appellants] are jointly and severally obligated to pay, all statutory benefits . . . including all medical expenses incurred as a result of the accident on January 14, 2015.
Id. at 14. The Appellants now appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-EX-1571 | January 30, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Discussion and Decision [7] The Appellants’ sole argument on appeal is that the Board erred when it
determined that Ard was their employee. The Appellants contend that the
Board should have deemed Ard to be an independent contractor because (1)
Ard failed to prove his status as an employee; and (2) Ard allegedly admitted in
a separate civil lawsuit that he was an independent contractor.
[8] Our review of decisions coming from the Board is well established:
The Worker’s Compensation Board, as the trier of fact, has a duty to issue findings of fact that reveal its analysis of the evidence and that are specific enough to permit intelligent review of its decision. Triplett v. USX Corp., 893 N.E.2d 1107, 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “In reviewing a worker’s compensation decision, an appellate court is bound by the factual determinations of the Board and may not disturb them unless the evidence is undisputed and leads inescapably to a contrary conclusion.” Christopher R. Brown, D.D.S., Inc. v. Decatur Cty Mem’l Hosp., 892 N.E.2d 642, 646 (Ind. 2008). We examine the record only to determine whether there is substantial evidence and reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom to support [the Board’s] findings and conclusion. Id. We will not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. Triplett, 893 N.E.2d at 1116. “As to the Board’s interpretation of the law, an appellate court employs a deferential standard of review of the interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with its enforcement in light of its expertise in the given area.” Brown, 892 N.E.2d at 646. The Board will only be reversed if it incorrectly interpreted [the statute]. Id.
Wright Tree Serv. v. Hernandez, 907 N.E.2d 183, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
[9] Pursuant to the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act, the term “employee” is
defined as any “person, including a minor, in the service of another, under any
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-EX-1571 | January 30, 2020 Page 4 of 7 contract of hire or apprenticeship, written or implied, except one whose
employment is both casual and not in the usual course of the trade, business,
occupation, or profession of the employer.” Ind. Code § 22-3-6-1(b).
[10] To determine whether an individual is an employee or an independent
contractor, we analyze the individual’s relationship with the employer under
the following ten factors:
(a) the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work;
(b) whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;
(c) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision;
(d) the skill required in the particular occupation;
(e) whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work;
(f) the length of time for which the person is employed;
(g) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job;
(h) whether or not the work is part of the regular business of the employer;
(i) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant; and
(j) whether the principal is or is not in business.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-EX-1571 | January 30, 2020 Page 5 of 7 Howard v. U.S. Signcrafters, 811 N.E.2d 479, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “We
consider all factors, and no single factor is dispositive.” Id.
[11] Against the backdrop of these factors, the record shows that Ard operated under
the tutelage and supervision of Jackson, Sr., for nearly three years before he was
injured on the job in 2015. Ard performed automotive repairs on towed vehicles
all within the Appellants’ workshop and used tools primarily furnished by the
Appellants. The Appellants even purchased some of Ard’s tools and supplies
during his tenure. Jackson, Sr., frequently gave directions to Ard about the
work that was to be accomplished, constructed the parameters for Ard’s day-to-
day tasks, and scheduled his working days and hours. Though Ard had one
principal job of repairing towed vehicles, it is undisputed that Ard spent the
overwhelming portion of his time working for the Appellants and was paid
hourly rather than job by job. And while he has specialized skills, Ard
nevertheless worked for an auto shop that dealt almost exclusively in the same
line of work—repairs. Finally, at the time of Ard’s injury, the Appellants were
in business.
[12] Despite the lack of tax forms, a written employment contract, and a crystal-
clear understanding of the relationship between Ard and the Appellants, the
evidence in the aggregate clearly leads to a conclusion that the balance of the
ten factors weighs in favor of the Board’s conclusion. Therefore, we find that
the Board did not err in rendering its decision that Ard was an employee and
not an independent contractor. The Appellants’ attempt to have us reevaluate
the totality of the evidence in favor of their position amounts to a request that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-EX-1571 | January 30, 2020 Page 6 of 7 we reweigh the evidence, which we may not do. There is substantial evidence in
the record supporting the Board’s determination under the Worker’s
Compensation Act, and we cannot say that the evidence unerringly leads to a
conclusion opposite that reached by the Board.
[13] Furthermore, with regards to the Appellants’ argument that Ard should be
estopped from claiming that he was an employee because he allegedly admitted
in a separate civil lawsuit that he was an independent contractor, we find their
argument to be unavailing. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
Board considered the separate civil complaint in rendering its ultimate decision
and nevertheless ruled the way that it did. Once again, we defer to the Board’s
judgment on these extremely fact-sensitive matters, and there is nothing
precluding the Board from deciding a matter differently than how a trial court
might decide it. Given its expertise and authority on such determinations, the
Board is in the best position possible to make these decisions. Accordingly, we
hold that the Board did not err.
[14] The judgment of the Board is affirmed.
Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-EX-1571 | January 30, 2020 Page 7 of 7