Brigham's Case, 202 N.E.2d 597 (Mass. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Brigham's Case, 202 N.E.2d 597 (Mass. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cable Mills v. Coakley Pierpan Dolan & Collins Insurance Agency (massappct, 2012-09-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cable Mills v. Coakley Pierpan Dolan & Collins Insurance Agency
Mass. App. Ct. · 2012 · confidence medium
An independent contractor is therefore “only responsible for the accomplishment of an agreed result in an agreed manner.” Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140, 141-142 (1964). 9 He nevertheless maintains complete control over the task for which he contracted.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fleece on Earth v. Dept. of Employment and Training
Vt. · 2007 · confidence medium
That is not to say, however, that what is commonly termed an employer-employee relationship, or what used to be called a "master-servant" relationship at common law, is not also the basic component of part A of the ABC test. [3] Considering the same language as that in Vermont's part A, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court explained in Athol Daily News v. Board of Review of Division of Employment & Training that "[t]his provision generally was construed according to the common-law analysis of master and servant relationship." 439 Mass. 171 , 786 N.E.2d 365, 371 (2003) (citing Brigham's Cas…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fleece on Earth v. Department of Employment & Training
Vt. · 2007 · confidence medium
That is not to say, however, that what is commonly termed an employer-employee relationship, or what used to be called a “master-servant” relationship at common law, is not also the basic component of part A of the ABC test. 3 Considering the same language as that in Vermont’s part A, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court explained in Athol Daily News v. Board of Review of Division of Employment & Training that “[t]his provision generally was construed according to the common-law analysis of master and servant relationship.” 786 N.E.2d 365, 371 (Mass. 2003) (citing Brigham’s Cas…
cited Cited as authority (rule) American Zurich Insurance v. Department of Industrial Accidents
Mass. Super. Ct. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Anthol, 439 Mass. at 177 , citing O’Malley’s Case, 361 Mass. 504, 504 (1972); Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140, 141-42 (1964) (primary test is right to control an individual’s work performance).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Athol Daily News v. Board of Review of the Division of Employment & Training
Mass. · 2003 · confidence medium
This provision generally was construed according to the common-law analysis of master and servant relationship. 10 See O’Malley’s Case, 361 Mass. 504, 505 (1972); Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140, 141-142 (1964) (“If in the performance of his work an individual is at all times bound to obedience and subject to direction and supervision as to details, he is an employee; but if he is only responsible for the accomplishment of an agreed result in an agreed manner, he is an independent contractor”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patterson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Mass. App. Ct. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Donnelly’s Case, 304 Mass. 514, 519-520 (1939); Hartman’s Case, 336 Mass. 508, 510 (1957); Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140, 141-142 (1964); O’Malley’s Case, 361 Mass. 504, 505 (1972); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(1) (1958); Locke, Workmen’s Compensation § 141 (2d ed. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Southern New England Conference Ass'n of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Federal Insurance
Mass. Super. Ct. · 1998 · confidence medium
The essence of the distinction is the right to control.” (Emphasis supplied.) Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140, 141-42 (1964), citing McDermott’s Case, 283 Mass. 74, 75-77 (1933) (“If the person doing the work is responsible only for the performance of what he agrees to do, in the way in which he agrees to do it, and is not subject to direction and control as to every detail of the work, he is an independent contractor”). 3 It is clear that Clark was not an employee under this test because Clark was not “at all times bound to obedience and subject to direction and supervision as to de…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kelley v. Rossi
Mass. · 1985 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140, 141-142 (1964) (same principle applied in deciding whether a person was an “employee” under workers’ compensation statute).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Madariaga's Case
Mass. App. Ct. · 1985 · confidence medium
See McDermott’s Case, 283 Mass. 74, 75-77 (1933); O’Hara’s Case, 310 Mass. 223, 225-227 (1941, worker’s compensation insurance against injuries some evidence of employment); Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140, 141-142 (1964); Locke, Workmen’s Compensation, §§ 141-149 (2d ed. 1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Seymour's Case
Mass. App. Ct. · 1978 · confidence medium
Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140, 141 (1964).
cited Cited as authority (rule) D'Angeli's Case
Mass. · 1976 · confidence medium
Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140, 141 (1964).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bagge's Case
Mass. · 1975 · confidence medium
Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140, 141 (1964), and cases cited.
cited Cited "see" McDonald v. Symons Corp.
Mass. Super. Ct. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Brigham's Case, 348 Mass. 140, 141-42 (1964).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rainbow Development, LLC v. Commonwealth Department of Industrial Accidents
Mass. Super. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Also In re Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140, 142 (1964) (the essence of the distinction, is the right of control.) Auto Shine was in contact with the dealerships and would monitor the job performance of the workers, (A.R. 17.) If a worker was not performing adequate detailing, Auto Shine would “(h]ave to find someone else” to perform the work, essentially terminating that worker.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Curtin's Case
Mass. App. Ct. · 1988 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Brigham’s Case, 348 Mass. 140 (1964); Lane’s Case, 354 Mass. 776 (1968); Locke, Workmen’s Compensation §§ 141-148 (2d ed. 1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William H. Brigham’s Case
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Dec 2, 1964.
202 N.E.2d 597
1964 Mass. LEXIS 685
Robert W. Cornell (Karl L. Qollub with him) for the insurer., Theodore L. Schiavoni for the claimant.
Wilkins, Spalding, Whittemoke, Cutter, Kirk, Spiegel, Reardon.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
Kirk, J.

The insurer appeals from a decree awarding compensation to the claimant (Brigham), an insurance salesman under contract with The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential).

Brigham was injured on December 22, 1960, when he slipped on ice and fell while getting into his car after having left in Prudential’s office money collected from policyholders. The reviewing board of the Industrial Accident Board acting under Gr. L. c. 152, § 10, in affirming and adopting the findings and decision of the single member that Brigham was an employee of Prudential and that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, made the further finding that Prudential ‘ ‘ retained the authority to control . . . [Brigham] in regard to details of his work.”

The general finding of the reviewing board entirely superseding, as it does, the decision of the single member, is final and must be upheld if supported by any evidence unless tainted by error of law, and this is so even if a different finding could have been made by the board. Nartowicz’s Case, 334 Mass. 684, 687. Hartman’s Case, 336 Mass. 508, 511, and cases cited. Bator’s Case, 338 Mass. 104, 105. Collins’s Case, 342 Mass. 389, 391.

The sole question raised by the appeal is whether there is any evidence to support the reviewing board’s finding that Brigham, at the time he was injured, was an employee of Prudential, as distinguished from an independent contractor, as the insurer contends. The test used in this Commonwealth to determine whether an individual is, on the one hand, a servant or employee, and thus covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Gr. L. c. 152, § 1 [4]), or, on the other hand, an independent contractor, and therefore not covered by the act, is the control which may be exercised over the individual in the performance of his work. If in the performance of his work an individual is at all[*142] times bound to obedience and subject to direction and supervision as to details, he is an employee; but if he is only responsible for the accomplishment of an agreed result in an agreed manner, he is an independent contractor. The essence of the distinction is the right to control. McDer-mott’s Case, 283 Mass. 74, 75-77. Hartman’s Case, 336 Mass. 508, 510.

We apply the test, as did the reviewing board, to the evidence: Brigham’s contract with Prudential provided that he was “to devote substantially all his working time to the Company’s business; and to render to policyholders of the Company all service incidental to the maintenance and care of the Company’s business which may be required by the policyholders or by the Company.” There was evidence that, in addition to collecting premiums and giving service on policies which he had sold, Brigham was assigned by Prudential to collect premiums and give service on policies not sold by him; that he was required to attend a weekly meeting and a weekly class conducted by Prudential, and was requested to make daily calls to the division manager’s office in person or by telephone; that the division manager could accompany him on his visits to clients or prospective clients; that he was required to submit a weekly report of work done and a weekly schedule of work to be done; that he could not sell insurance for any other company if it was of a kind sold by Prudential; that his only license to sell insurance was contingent upon his relation with Prudential; and that Prudential made available to him a desk and secretarial help.

It cannot be said that this evidence leaves unsupported the reviewing board’s finding that Prudential had the right to control Brigham in the performance of the details of his work. It follows that the decision that Brigham was an employee of Prudential must stand. Churchill’s Case, 265 Mass. 117,119.

The decree is affirmed. Costs and expenses of this appeal under Gr. L. c. 152, § 11A, shall be allowed by the single justice.

So ordered.