978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-08-07 Part 1

Idaho,2011.

Moore v. Moore

— P.3d —-, 2011 WL 310376 (Idaho)

When reviewing a decision by the Industrial Commission, the Supreme Court exercises free review over the

Commission’s conclusions of law, but will not disturb the Commission’s factual findings if they are supported by

substantial and competent evidence.

[2] Workers’ Compensation 413 1939.6

413 Workers’ Compensation

413XVI Proceedings to Secure Compensation

413XVI(T) Review by Court

413XVI(T)12A Questions of Law or Fact, Findings, and Verdict

413 Workers’ Compensation

413XVI Proceedings to Secure Compensation

413XVI(T) Review by Court

413XVI(T)12A Questions of Law or Fact, Findings, and Verdict

413 Workers’ Compensation

413XVI Proceedings to Secure Compensation

413XVI(N) Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

413XVI(N)4 Employees Within Acts

paid for his work on the day he was injured, in all prior dealings claimant was paid as a separate business entity and

not as an employee, no taxes were withheld from any payments made to claimant, on the date of the injury the par-

ties were preparing for a sales trip, and all prior sales trips had been joint ventures. West’s I.C.A. § 72–102(12, 17).

[5] Workers’ Compensation 413 233

413k233 k. Necessity of Relation of Master and Servant or Employer and Employee. Most Cited Cases

An individual must be an employee in order to obtain coverage under Idaho’s workers‘ compensation laws.

[6] Workers’ Compensation 413 306

time, manner and method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite

results.

[7] Workers’ Compensation 413 306

contractor, including: (1) direct evidence of such right; (2) the method of payment for the work completed; (3) the

party responsible for furnishing the major items of equipment; and (4) the right to terminate the employment rela-

tionship at will and without liability.

[8] Workers’ Compensation 413 305

compensation laws, the Workers’ Compensation Act must be given a liberal construction by the Commission in its

fact finding function in favor of finding the relationship of employer and employee.

[9] Workers’ Compensation 413 1710

Whether an injured worker is an independent contractor or employee is a factual determination to be made on a

case-by-case basis from full consideration of the facts and circumstances.

413k1410 k. Testimony or Statements of Parties or Persons Injured in General. Most Cited Cases

Substantial evidence supported the workers’ compensation referee’s finding that claimant’s testimony was unre-

liable; claimant provided inconsistent testimony as to how long he was unable to work as a result of his injuries.

[11] Workers’ Compensation 413 1704

Determining the credibility of witnesses and evidence in workers’ compensation cases is a matter within the

province of the Industrial Commission.

[12] Workers’ Compensation 413 1407

the issue into two categories, observational credibility and substantive credibility; observational credibility goes to

the demeanor of the appellant on the witness stand and it requires that the Commission actually be present for the

hearing in order to judge it, and on the other hand, substantive credibility may be judged on the grounds of numer-

ous inaccuracies or conflicting facts and does not require the presence of the Commission at the hearing.

compensation because he was an independent contractor rather than a covered employee when he was injured while

performing work for his father, William Moore, Sr. We affirm.

I.

Factual and Procedural Background

William Moore, Sr. owned and operated a wholesale tire business called Moore Enterprises for several years be-

fore he passed away in March of 2008.FN1 William’s son, Jonathan Moore, Sr. (Claimant), had previously worked as

an employee of Moore Enterprises during high school, and was also an employee in 1996. Following his employ-

ment with Moore Enterprises, Claimant started his own tire business called Morecedes Tire. As part of his business,

Claimant regrooved tires and sold them to various businesses. Over the years, Claimant would occasionally sell re-

grooved tires to Moore Enterprises, or repair tires for Moore Enterprises, each time acting as an independent con-

tractor doing business as Morecedes Tire. There were also several occasions when William and Claimant traveled to

other states to sell regrooved tires. At times during these trips, Claimant and William would sell tires on behalf of

their respective businesses, and at other times, Claimant would sell tires on behalf of Moore Enterprises. In addition

Charles Jarvis as an employee at Moore Enterprises, and agreed to pay him $12.00 per hour for the work.

On the morning of May 17, 2005, Claimant went to William’s residence, which was also where Moore Enter-

prises was located, to accompany William on a sales trip to Montana. According to Claimant, this was his first day

on the job as an employee at Moore Enterprises. While Claimant was unhooking William’s tire trailer, he was struck

in the face by a jack handle. William was present at the time of the accident and transported Claimant to the hospital

submitted a claim through his personal automobile insurance policy, rather than his workers’ compensation policy,

for coverage of Claimant’s medical expenses. Claimant’s expenses were covered through the automobile medical

policy up to the liability limits.

On August 15, 2006, approximately fifteen months after the accident, William filed a First Report of Injury or

Illness with the State Insurance Fund (Surety). In December of 2006, Surety began to voluntarily pay Claimant’s

Prior to a hearing on the merits of Claimant’s workers’ compensation claim, Surety filed a Motion to Amend

Answer and Add Issues for Hearing. In the motion, Surety asserted that two witnesses had been discovered who

were expected to testify Claimant told them he was not working for William at the time he was injured but, rather,

had injured himself unloading a boat trailer. Surety also indicated that during his deposition, Claimant had testified

he was never paid by his father as an employee. The Referee granted the motion, and Surety filed an amended an-