Roadway Package Systems v Storey Digest No. 17.25 Section 421.42(1) and (5), and 421.44(1) Cite as: Roadway Package Systems, Inc v Storey, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued July 27, 2006 (Docket No. 05-535515-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Craig Storey Employer: Roadway Package Systems, Inc. Date of decision: July 27, 2006 View/download… Read More »
Larry Coppens, d/b/a Strawberry Tree & Landscaping v. Matthew L. Hayes Digest No. 17.22 Section 421.41; Section 421.42 Cite as: Coppens v Hayes, unpublished opinion of the Oakland County Circuit Court, issued October 12, 2005, (Docket No. 05-064176-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Matthew L. Hayes Employer: Larry Coppens, d/b/a Strawberry Tree & Landscaping Date of… Read More »
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Whether a business is an employer of a worker for purposes of the MES Act depends upon the economic reality of their relationship; under the economic reality test, among the factors to be used are (1) control of the worker’s duties, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the right to hire and fire and the right to discipline, and (4) the performance of the duties as an integral part of the employer’s business towards the accomplishment of a common goal.
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a nurse-anesthetist declines employee status, signs a contract to provide services at a hospital as an independent contractor, and retains the right to perform services elsewhere, the doctrine of “economic reality” does not apply, and the claimant is an independent contractor.
The test of whether a person or business is liable for workers’ compensation benefits as the employer of a claimant is not a matter of terminology, oral or written, but of the realities of the work performed; control of the claimant is a factor, as is payment of wages, hiring and firing, and the responsibility for the maintenance of discipline, but the test of economic reality views these elements as a whole, assigning primacy to no single one.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The test to determine whether an employee-employer relationship exists for purposes of the Worker’s Compensation Act is the “economic reality test”, and the factors used to apply the test are whether: (1) the employer will incur liability if the relationship terminates at will; (2) the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business; (3) the employee primarily depends upon the wages for living expenses; (4) the employee furnishes equipment and material; (5) the employee holds himself out to the public as able to perform certain tasks; (6) the work involved is customarily performed by an independent contractor. Along with (7) the factors of control, payment of wages, maintenance of discipline, and the right to engage or discharge employees; and (8) weighing those factors which will most favorably effectuate the purposes of the Act.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The economic reality test is to be used in unemployment compensation cases dealing with whether a person is an employee or independent contractor.