contractor test in Pennsylvania

2016Osborne Associates, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 3 A.3d 722, 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (remanding to the Board to make the necessary findings to determine the claimant’s eligibility for benefits based on the independent contractor test factors); Resource Staffing, Inc., 961 A.2d at 265 (vacating the Board’s order and remanding the matter for additional findings where the decision adopted by the Board did not make adequate findings necessary for applying the independent contractor test factors); Tri-State Scientific v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 589 A.2d 305,

2016See, e.g., Resource Staffing, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 961 A.2d 261, 265 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (vacating the Board’s order and remanding for additional 12 findings where the decision the Board adopted did not contain adequate factual findings for applying the independent contractor test).

2020Moreover, to [the] extent [diminution in value] applies outside of the builder-vendor context, "once the homeowner [] presented evidence as to the cost of remedying the defects, the burden is on the contractor to challenge this evidence." Fetzer, 582 A.2d at 26; see also[ Gloviak, 608 A.2d at 560 ].

2020Moreover, to [the] extent [diminution in value] applies outside of the builder-vendor context, "once the homeowner [] presented evidence as to the cost of remedying the defects, the burden is on the contractor to challenge this evidence." Fetzer, 582 A.2d at 26; see also[ Gloviak, 608 A.2d at 560 ].

2017For that determination, we consider “‘whether the individual was capable of performing the activities in question [for] anyone who wished to avail themselves of the services and whether the nature of the business compelled the individual to look to only a single employer for the continuation of such services.’” Stage Road Poultry, 34 A.3d at 891 (quoting Venango Newspapers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 631 A.2d 1384, 1388 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)).

2010As to the second prong of the independent contractor test — whether the claimant was engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business — the courts have generally considered: (1) whether the individual was “ ‘capable of performing [his services] to anyone who wished to avail themselves of the services’ and [was] not ‘compelled ... to look to only a single employer for the continuation of such services’ ”; (2) whether the individual was “dependent on [the presumed employer] for employment”; and (3) whether the individual was “hired on a job-to-job basis and could

2010As to the second prong of the independent contractor test — whether the claimant was engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business — the courts have generally considered: (1) whether the individual was “ ‘capable of performing [his services] to anyone who wished to avail themselves of the services’ and [was] not ‘compelled ... to look to only a single employer for the continuation of such services’ ”; (2) whether the individual was “dependent on [the presumed employer] for employment”; and (3) whether the individual was “hired on a job-to-job basis and could

2010As to the second prong of the independent contractor test — whether the claimant was engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business — the courts have generally considered: (1) whether the individual was “ ‘capable of performing [his services] to anyone who wished to avail themselves of the services’ and [was] not ‘compelled ... to look to only a single employer for the continuation of such services’ ”; (2) whether the individual was “dependent on [the presumed employer] for employment”; and (3) whether the individual was “hired on a job-to-job basis and could

2023This ensures that the plaintiff 38 Id. 39 Capan v. Divine Providence Hosp., 430 A.2d 647 (Pa. Super. 1980). 40 Green v. Pennsylvania Hosp., 123 A.3d 310, 317 (Pa. 2015). [J-68-2022] [MO: Brobson, J.] - 11 recovers directly from the hospital and avoids the independent contractor doctrine that would otherwise shield the hospital from liability.41 The ostensible agency doctrine codified in Section 516 does nothing to limit a hospital’s ability to seek indemnification from a corporate employer of negligent physicians.

2016Osborne Associates, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 3 A.3d 722, 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (remanding to the Board to make the necessary findings to determine the claimant’s eligibility for benefits based on the independent contractor test factors); Resource Staffing, Inc., 961 A.2d at 265 (vacating the Board’s order and remanding the matter for additional findings where the decision adopted by the Board did not make adequate findings necessary for applying the independent contractor test factors); Tri-State Scientific v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 589 A.2d 305,

2016Osborne Associates, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 3 A.3d 722, 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (remanding to the Board to make the necessary findings to determine the claimant’s eligibility for benefits based on the independent contractor test factors); Resource Staffing, Inc., 961 A.2d at 265 (vacating the Board’s order and remanding the matter for additional findings where the decision adopted by the Board did not make adequate findings necessary for applying the independent contractor test factors); Tri-State Scientific v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 589 A.2d 305,

2016Moreover, to the extent that Claimant argues that she was engaged in the “sideline activity” exception to the general disqualification for self-employment, the Board also failed to make the necessary findings of fact.10 “Under Section 402(h) of the law, an employee who engages in self-employment is ineligible for benefits unless (1) the self-employment began prior to the termination of the employee’s full- time employment; (2) the self-employment continued without substantial change after the termination; (3) the employee remained available for full-time employment; and (4) the self-employment

2012Notably, the contract involved in Lascio contained an independent contractor clause, which provided that subcontractors and persons hired by the subcontractors are independent contractors and “shall not be deemed to be the employees of [the general contractor] for any purposes whatsoever.” Lascio, 704 A.2d at 645 (emphasis added).

2012Notably, the contract involved in Lascio contained an independent contractor clause, which provided that subcontractors and persons hired by the subcontractors are independent contractors and "shall not be deemed to be the employees of [the general contractor] for any purposes whatsoever." Lascio, 704 A.2d at 645 (emphasis added).

2010Abbey Marketing, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 165 Pa.Cmwlth. 292 , 645 A.2d 339, 341-42 (1994) (recognizing that this Court is not empowered with the duty to make factual findings where the findings made by the Board are inadequate and vacating the Board’s order and remanding the matter for the Board to make specific findings to aid in applying the independent contractor test factors).

2010Abbey Marketing, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 165 Pa.Cmwlth. 292 , 645 A.2d 339, 341-42 (1994) (recognizing that this Court is not empowered with the duty to make factual findings where the findings made by the Board are inadequate and vacating the Board’s order and remanding the matter for the Board to make specific findings to aid in applying the independent contractor test factors).

1999See Brletich v. United States Steel Corp., 445 Pa. 525 , 285 A.2d 133 (1971); Hader v. Coplay Cement Manufacturing Co., 410 Pa. 139 , 189 A.2d 271 (1963); Celender v. Allegheny County Sanitary Authority, 208 Pa. Super. 390 , 222 A.2d 461 (1966).

1999See Brletich v. United States Steel Corp., 445 Pa. 525 , 285 A.2d 133 (1971); Hader v. Coplay Cement Manufacturing Co., 410 Pa. 139 , 189 A.2d 271 (1963); Celender v. Allegheny County Sanitary Authority, 208 Pa. Super. 390 , 222 A.2d 461 (1966).

1984Rationale for the independent contractor doctrine was stated in Silveus v. Grossman, 307 Pa. 272, 278 , 161 A. 362, 364 (1932): The very phrase “independent contractor” implies that the contractor is independent in the manner of doing the work contracted for.

1984Rationale for the independent contractor doctrine was stated in Silveus v. Grossman, 307 Pa. 272, 278 , 161 A. 362, 364 (1932): The very phrase “independent contractor” implies that the contractor is independent in the manner of doing the work contracted for.