Carrier’s Lack of Control Shows that Driver was Independent Contractor

Case File

Because a carrier didn't hold control over how a driver did his work, what equipment he used, and the schedule he followed, the driver was an independent contractor and not an employee under Arizona law. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Ibrahim v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, No. 1CA-IC-24-0004 (Ariz. Ct. App. 10/08/24, unpublished).

What Happened

A truck driver was seriously injured when a semi he was driving rolled over while on a haul for a freight carrier. He filed a claim with the ICA, but the carrier denied responsibility, arguing that the driver was not an employee as evidenced by the independent contractor agreement he signed with the carrier.

The evidence in the case showed that the carrier and driver entered into an agreement under which the driver would be paid weekly, but no rate was specified. The agreement allowed the carrier to keep the driver's final week of pay if sufficient notice was not given. The driver had to provide a vehicle and the tools, materials, and equipment necessary to perform the work. Additionally, the agreement specified that no unemployment or workers' compensation insurance would be provided and that the carrier would not withhold payroll taxes.

At trial, an administrative law judge found in the carrier's favor, prompting an appeal.

Rule of Law

In Arizona, an independent contractor is not an employee under workers' compensation law, which defines "employee" as a worker whose work "is a part or process in the trade or business of the employer" and over whose work the hirer retains supervision or control. On the other hand, an "independent contractor" is a worker who is "not subject to the rule or control" of the hirer and is "engaged only in the performance of a definite job or piece of work."

What the Court Said

While the driver's work was in the usual and regular course of the carrier's long-haul trucking business, "very little indicia of control" were present. In particular, the court highlighted that:

(1) The carrier had minimal rights to control the driver and how he accomplished his work.

(2) The driver was not limited to particular routes or specific times to drive.

(3) The driver was free to deliver the cargo in any way that ended in a timely, undamaged arrival at the destination.

(4) The driver was not required to lease a truck from the carrier.

(5) The carrier did not supply any of the driver's cost doing business.

"Under Arizona workers' compensation law, the evidence here does not show that [the carrier] had a right to control [the driver's] work to the extent than an employer-employee relationship was created," the court wrote, affirming the ALJ's award.

Takeaway

In Arizona, the question of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor boils down to what kind of control the alleged employer had over the worker's work.

Share This Article: