Abbasi Communications & Phoenix Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Cramer)

Citation: Not availableDocket: 487 C.D. 2019

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; November 17, 2019; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Abbasi Communications and Phoenix Insurance Company (Petitioners) sought judicial review of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board's (Board) March 29, 2019 order, which affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision favoring Claimant Thomas Cramer. The Petitioners contested two issues: (1) the sufficiency of evidence supporting the WCJ's finding that Claimant lacked control over his schedule, and (2) the Board's affirmation of the WCJ's legal conclusion regarding Claimant's status as Abbasi’s employee. 

Claimant filed a Claim Petition on August 10, 2015, alleging injuries from a fall while working as a satellite equipment installer for Abbasi. Abbasi denied the claim, and the issue of Claimant’s employment status was bifurcated. Testimonies were taken over several hearings, and on August 26, 2016, the WCJ determined Claimant was an employee. Following further proceedings, the WCJ issued a final decision on January 25, 2018, granting Claimant’s petition. 

Petitioners appealed, asserting there was no employer-employee relationship. The Board upheld the WCJ’s decision, noting the WCJ found that Abbasi exercised sufficient control over Claimant's work, indicating an employment relationship despite aspects of independent contractor status. The ruling emphasized that establishing whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor is a critical legal determination necessary for awarding workers’ compensation benefits, as independent contractors are ineligible for such benefits. The claimant bears the burden of proof in establishing this relationship. The court affirmed the Board's order, agreeing that the record supported the WCJ's findings.

The Court's review is confined to assessing potential violations of constitutional rights or legal errors, as well as verifying that necessary factual findings are backed by substantial evidence. On May 29, 2019, Petitioners submitted a supersedeas request, which was denied on July 8, 2019, due to a lack of demonstration of irreparable injury. Following this, on August 26, 2019, Claimant filed a Motion to Compel Petitioners to make overdue workers' compensation (WC) benefit payments, citing non-payment of penalties and attorney’s fees. Claimant also noted that Petitioners failed to remit payments to the Department of Veterans Affairs as required. Petitioners did not respond to this motion, which was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Claimant to seek relief from the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ).

The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a legal question subject to plenary review and de novo standard. There is no definitive rule for establishing this relationship, but the Supreme Court has identified several factors to consider, including the control over work execution, responsibility for results, terms of agreement, nature of work, required skills, independence of occupation, supply of tools, payment structure, integration into the employer's business, and termination rights. Among these, the primary factors are the control over work and the manner of execution, emphasizing the significance of the right to control, even if not exercised. Other relevant factors include wage payments, payroll deductions, workers' compensation coverage, self-employment tax filings, and the existence of a contractor agreement, none of which are solely determinative.

The WCJ found the testimonies of both Claimant and Sinan Abbasi credible, noting their agreement on key facts despite their disagreement on Claimant's employment status as either an independent contractor or employee. They concurred that Claimant was recruited online, received Abbasi-branded business materials, and was assigned installation jobs through Abbasi’s website with no ability to alter them. Claimant was required to maintain HughesNet certification and provide photographic evidence of completed installations for payment. While Claimant owned his vehicle and tools, he had inventory responsibilities at an Abbasi-paid storage site and was compensated per installation rather than by time worked. 

The WCJ applied three Hammermill Factors indicating independent contractor status: Claimant supplied his own tools and vehicle, was paid per job, and filed tax documents reflecting self-employment income. However, additional factors suggested an employer-employee relationship: Claimant had no control over his assignments, which were dictated by Abbasi, and adhered to strict guidelines set by HughesNet. Abbasi controlled the work's execution and retained the right to approve any changes to Claimant's assignments. The WCJ concluded that Claimant was an employee of Abbasi at the time of his injury, rejecting Petitioners’ claims that the findings lacked substantial evidence, as the evidence showed Claimant's schedule and assignments were entirely managed by Abbasi’s website.

Petitioners contest the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) assertion that Claimant was required to seek approval from Abbasi for scheduling changes and was directed on when and where to work. They argue that evidence indicates Claimant had control over his appointment times and locations, suggesting an independent contractor status. Prior to commencing work, Claimant completed a 'Contractor Technician Coverage' form, which outlined his service area and availability, and included a provision stating that if his route changed, he would be contacted by dispatch, needing to respond within one hour. Claimant acknowledged this form established work parameters that were mutually satisfactory.

Testimony from Sinan Abbasi indicated that Claimant could refuse assignments and choose not to work in a given week. Claimant could reschedule appointments directly with clients but was expected to notify Abbasi to update the schedule. Although Claimant initially stated he needed Abbasi's permission to change his schedule, he later clarified that he sometimes contacted clients for availability before seeking Abbasi's approval for any changes. Abbasi confirmed that the A-connect website did not allow Claimant to reject or accept jobs independently.

The WCJ, as the sole fact-finder, has exclusive authority over credibility and evidentiary weight. The Court concurred with the WCJ's finding that Claimant did not independently schedule installations, as this was managed by Abbasi, and any schedule changes required Abbasi's approval. The Court addressed Petitioners' argument that the WCJ and Board erred by concluding Claimant was an employee at the time of his injury on May 31, 2015. Petitioners acknowledged that while three of the Hammermill Factors indicated an independent contractor relationship, the WCJ improperly found that Abbasi exerted control over the manner, timing, and location of Claimant's work, as well as issued business materials displaying Abbasi’s name.

Petitioners argue that Abbasi did not control the manner in which Claimant performed his work, asserting that requiring adherence to HughesNet installation specifications and submission of installation photographs does not equate to controlling work performance. They reference *Cox v. Caeti* and *Holt v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review* to support their claim that periodic monitoring and inspections do not imply control over how work is executed. In *Cox*, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that a stoneworker, while being monitored by a home improvement company, was an independent contractor, as inspections indicated interest in the results rather than control over performance methods. Similarly, in *Holt*, the court found that a claimant who dictated her own working hours and methods was self-employed, despite the employer providing an outline of needed work. Petitioners claim, consistent with these precedents, that Claimant was responsible only for the results of his work. However, Claimant testified that he was required to complete training and follow specific procedures for HughesNet installations, indicating Abbasi exercised significant control over his work methods. The court noted that Claimant also lacked control over his schedule, supporting the finding that Abbasi maintained substantial control over both the manner and timing of Claimant’s work.

Claimant received business cards and a magnetic placard from Sinan Abbasi for use on Claimant's van, which identified Abbasi as a HughesNet Authorized Retailer and Claimant as an "Internet Expert." The cards contained Abbasi’s toll-free number instead of Claimant’s personal number, along with an email address owned by Abbasi, which Claimant could not access. Abbasi explained that this arrangement was made to address customer complaints about identifying installers and to streamline communication for any issues. He admitted that the business cards and truck placard did not indicate that Claimant was an independent contractor, instead labeling him as a "certified installer." Abbasi ordered the business cards to increase sales and maintain control over the installation process without hiring Pennsylvania employees.

The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) concluded that Abbasi misrepresented Claimant’s status, causing confusion by listing Abbasi’s contact information and identifying Claimant in a way that suggested he was an employee. Petitioners argued that the presence of Abbasi’s insignia on the vehicle was irrelevant, citing a precedent in Universal Am-Can, where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that such insignias are merely factors in determining employment status. However, the WCJ considered Abbasi's directives regarding the placard and business cards as significant factors in finding that Abbasi effectively held Claimant out as an employee. Given Abbasi's control over Claimant’s work and schedule, along with the WCJ's analysis of other relevant factors, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision. The order from the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board was affirmed, and Claimant's Motion to Compel was dismissed without prejudice, allowing for a petition for relief to the WCJ.