Did Getting Injured on a Sunday Bar Worker from WC Benefits?

What Do You Think?

Employers can generally avoid paying worker’s compensation benefits by showing that the worker is an independent contractor. Only it’s not always clear. One case highlights some of the signs courts look for and one that may not necessarily matter.

Wasn't there a famous book where someone worked six days and rested on the seventh, but did that make him an independent contractor? That question came up in the case of a worker who cleaned equipment for an excavation company.

The owner hired the claimant on an open-ended basis and instructed her how to water the ground at excavation sites to control dust, pick up tools, and clean and fuel equipment. The company was legally required to control dust at excavation sites and clean equipment before transporting it.

The owner provided the claimant a truck, a company debit card, and tools. He paid her hourly without taking out taxes.

On a Friday afternoon, the owner told her to clean some excavating equipment so it could be picked up Monday morning. The equipment did not arrive until Sunday afternoon, so that’s when the claimant washed it. She climbed up to clean the back window when she fell and injured herself.

The company opposed her workers’ compensation claim, asserting that she was an independent contractor, and that she was injured on a Sunday when the company was closed and no one was authorized to work.

In Arizona, only employees injured in the course of employment are eligible for compensation. Independent contractors are not.

An employee is a worker over whose work the employer retains supervision or control. An IC is a worker who is not subject to the employer’s control and is engaged only in the performance of a definite job or piece of work.

Was the claimant the excavation company’s employee?

A. Yes. The owner told her what to do and instructed her to have the equipment cleaned for Monday.

B. No. The fact that she was working Sunday when the company was closed indicated that she was not under the company’s control or supervision.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in J-King Excavating v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, No. CA-IC 24-0025 (Ariz. Ct. App. 02/27/25), which held that the claimant was an employee.

The court noted that Arizona courts apply the control test to determine whether a particular worker is an employee. Courts look at all the facts, examining various red flags. These signs of control include:

• The duration of the employment 
• The method of payment
• Who furnishes necessary equipment
• Whether the employer has right to hire and fire 
• The extent to which the employer may exercise control over the details of the work 
• Whether the work was performed in the usual and regular course of the employer's business.

There were various signs that the claimant was an employee, the court concluded. First, her work was open-ended, rather than being for a specific job. Also, the company provided her the tools she needed. 

Further, she performed duties that were in the regular course of the business. This latter sign was underlined by the fact that the company was legally bound to control dust and clean equipment. In addition, the owner specifically instructed her how to carry out her work. 

The court was not persuaded by the company’s argument that tje claimant was not authorized to work Sundays and thus was not under the company’s control.  

“Contrary to J-King's argument, [the claimant] worked on Sunday because she was not provided with the necessary equipment until Sunday, and J-King wanted her to finish by Monday morning,” the court wrote.

The owner’s instructions to have the cleaning done for Monday also showed the company was exercising control over her consistent with an employer-employee relationship.

The claimant was an employee eligible for workers' compensation when she was injured, the court ruled.

Share This Article: