ILNews

DTCI: Independent contractors under the Worker’s Compensation Act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

czernik-molly-mug Czernik

By Molly E. Czernik

Independent contractors are usually excluded from coverage under the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act. Accordingly, an individual’s status as an independent contractor may serve as a defense to an otherwise compensable claim. While this general principle – that independent contractors are not covered by the Act – seems simple enough, the provisions of the Act addressing independent contractors can give rise to some complex legal and factual issues. Also, it is important to note that the definition of an independent contractor was recently amended in the Act. The change appears insignificant at first glance, and discussion about the change was relatively limited in comparison to other amendments handed down last year. This article takes a closer look at the statutory provisions governing independent contractors and issues that can arise in cases in which they are involved.

General rules and ‘independent contractor’ defined

The Act applies to every employer-employee relationship in Indiana, unless specifically exempted. See Ind. Code §22-3-2-2 (2013). An independent contractor is not an employee and is therefore excluded from coverage. Before July 1, 2013, Indiana Code §22-3-6-1(b)(7) provided that “[a] person is an independent contractor in the construction trades and not an employee under IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6 if the person is an independent contractor under the guidelines of the United States Internal Revenue Service.” Ind. Code §22-3-6-1(b)(7) (2012) (amended 2013).

House Enrolled Act 1320, effective July 1, 2013, removed the phrase “in the construction trades” from the definition so that it now reads: “[a] person is an independent contractor and not an employee under IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6 if the person is an independent contractor under the guidelines of the United States Internal Revenue Service.” Ind. Code §22-3-6-1(b)(7)(2013). Under the caselaw, the courts had adopted a 10-factor balancing test based on the common-law test as stated in the Restatement (Second) of Agency to determine the status of independent contractor relationship versus that of an employer-employee relationship. Expressway Dodge, Inc. v. McFarland, 766 N.E.2d 26, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). These factors include:

a) the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work;

b) whether 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 the work is a part of the regular business of the employer;

i) whether the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant; and

j) whether the principal is or is not in business.

Id. All 10 factors must be considered, and no single factor is dispositive. Howard v. U.S. Signcrafters, 811 N.E.2d 479, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). That being said, caselaw implementing a notably similar seven-factor test to examine whether an employer-employee relationship exists notes that the right to control the manner and means of the work are the most important factors. GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 406 (Ind. 2001).

By comparison, the IRS general guidelines reference a similar factor-balancing test used to analyze the degree of control versus independence of a particular employee or independent contractor. The IRS guidelines describe the fact-weighing analysis as a common-law test, although the specific factors identified are different from the caselaw cited above.

Nevertheless, the analysis in the workers’ compensation context and under the caselaw is not expected to change because of the recently amended definition. The change in the definition seemed to make practical sense so that there is now one definition of an independent contractor contained within the Act, regardless of the trade the contractor practices.

Coverage for certain independent contractors and certificates of exemption

Notwithstanding these general principles, the Act allows certain individuals who have been viewed previously as independent contractors to elect coverage as employees under their insurance contracts. Ind. Code §22-3-6-1(b)(4)-(5) (2013). This includes an owner of a sole proprietorship or partner in a partnership if the owner or partner is actually engaged in the proprietorship or partnership business. Id. However, the owner or partner must serve written notice to its insurance carrier and to the Worker’s Compensation Board of its election. Id. Interestingly, Indiana Code §§22-3-6-1(b)(4) and (b)(5) provide that if an owner of a sole proprietorship or partner in a partnership works as an independent contractor in the construction trades and does not elect coverage, the owner must obtain a certificate of exemption under Indiana Code § 22-3-2-14.5. Id. Under these same provisions, any other independent contractors (not in the construction trades) may obtain a certificate of exemption under Indiana Code §22-3-2-14.5. Id.

However, Indiana Code §22-3-2-14.5 makes no such distinction about those working in the construction trades: “[a]n independent contractor who does not make an election under IC 22-3-6-1(b)(4) or IC 22-3-6-1(b)(5) is not subject to the compensation provision of IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6 and must file a statement with the department of state revenue in accordance with IC 6-3-7-5 and obtain a certificate of exemption.” Ind. Code §22-3-2-14.5(c) (2013). That suggests that all independent contractors would be well served to obtain the certificate of exemption regardless of their specific trade.

Any person contracting for the services of one who is not covered by the Act (i.e., an independent contractor) to perform work must secure a copy of a stamped certificate of exemption issued by the Worker’s Compensation Board. Ind. Code § 22-3-2-14.5(h) (2013). The certificate of exemption is binding and holds any person that contracts with an independent contractor, as well as that person’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, harmless from all claims. It seems reasonable, then, that a certificate of exemption would be fairly compelling evidence of an individual’s independent contractor status and corresponding exemption from the Act. However, depending on the facts of a particular case, even if the form was not perfected, using the 10-factor test cited above may clarify the independent contractor status.

To obtain a certificate of exemption from the board, the independent contractor first files an application for a workers’ compensation clearance certificate (which is also described as an “Affidavit” on the form) with the department of state revenue along with a filing fee and documentation of independent contractor status. The department of revenue verifies that the independent contractor’s taxes are current, and if cleared by the department of revenue, the department submits the approved application to the Worker’s Compensation Board for further processing and approval. The board will then issue a stamped certificate of exemption to the independent contractor. The certificates of exemption are kept on file by the board and are good for one year. The Act requires that a person hiring an independent contractor obtain a stamped certificate of exemption from the person hired, but the board may also verify that a certificate was filed. The independent contractor must re-apply for the certificate of exemption every year to maintain exempt status. Once the independent contractor produces his certificate of exemption, he can collect no compensation under the Act. Likewise, once a stamped certificate of exemption is produced, the person hiring that independent contractor cannot require the independent contractor to have workers’ compensation coverage for himself. See generally Ind. Code § 22-3-2-14.5 (a)-(i) (2013).

Secondary liability and certificates of compliance

While they are usually excluded from coverage, independent contractors can – and often do – have their own employees and are thus obligated to comply with the provisions of the Act. In other words, an independent contractor, although exempt himself, must still provide coverage for his employees. Ind. Code §22-3-5-1 (2013). If an independent contractor fails to comply with the Act in this regard, the state or any political division thereof, any municipal corporation, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or person who contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of work exceeding $1,000 can be held liable for benefits owed because of a work-related injury to an employee – unless that person contracting with the independent contractor obtains a certificate of compliance from the board. Ind. Code §22-3-2-14 (b) (2013). Stated differently, the party hiring the independent contractor can be held secondarily liable for work-related injuries of the independent contractor’s employees. Id. This provision includes a contractor subletting work to a subcontractor but excludes homeowners who contract for work on the owner-occupied residential property. It also excludes a nonprofit corporation exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code when the independent contractor agreement is for the performance of youth coaching services on a part-time basis. Ind. Code §22-3-2-14 (2013).

The certificate of compliance is not to be confused with the certificate of exemption. To the contrary, there could be some instances in which the hiring party would want to secure both the certificate of compliance and the certificate of exemption. The certificate of compliance should be obtained from the board in situations contemplated by this provision to avoid secondary liability. It is also important to note that the board will reject a certificate of insurance as a substitute form to overcome or avoid secondary liability under this section without more evidence for the exclusion.

In cases where secondary liability might be an issue, the claim filed with the board shall be filed against all parties potentially liable. Ind. Code §22-3-2-14(e) (2013). The board then enters an award stating the order in which the responsible parties are liable, starting with the employer or primarily liable party. Id. The board shall also determine in its award whether the primarily liable party or subcontractor has the financial ability to pay benefits under the Act. If that party cannot pay, then the board will order the general contractor, or up-the-ladder party, to pay the award. Id.

Once a secondarily liable party pays an award pursuant to this statutory provision, that party can recover the amount paid from the primarily liable party, plus fees and expenses incurred in the action before the board as well as the action to recover. Ind. Code §22-3-2-14(d) (2013).

Conclusion

Cases involving the independent contractor defense are highly fact-specific. It is hoped that the principles and statutory provisions discussed here provide at least a glimpse into issues that can arise in such cases. The parties involved may be unaware of the Act’s requirements for independent contractors, but a critical look at the facts of your particular case may nonetheless give rise to the defense. It may be worth remembering that – even if the facts of a particular case are not entirely predictable (perhaps some of the factors weigh in favor of each party or perhaps a party did not secure the certificate of exemption) – the independent contractor exclusion may still be a valuable resource in negotiating a compromise. General familiarity with the basic principles will help ensure that clients obtain the necessary forms for independent contractors and lay to rest contentious issues before litigation arises.•

Ms. Czernik is an associate in the Indianapolis office of Dugan & Voland and is an active member of the DTCI’s Worker’s Compensation Section. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Interesting Article...
    Thank you for the interesting and informative article. If all independent contractors are now required to file WCE-1, regardless of trade of profession, I'm interested to know what the specific penalties are for non-compliance. The IC talks about criminal penalties for submitting false information via WCE-1 that is, falsely claiming to be an independent contractor, but I'm wondering what the penalties are for NOT filing at all, now that state law appears to suggest that filing is mandatory. Are state departments interested in enforcement of this requirement, or do problems usually arise after a claim is made, and no exemption found. Any advice appreciated.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT