Sun Vista, Inc. v. Miss. Dep't of Employment Security
| Docket Number: | 2009-CC-00859-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CC-00859-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-01-2011 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Independent contractor - Employee/employer relationship - Section 71-5-11(J)(14) - Hearsay - Newly discovered evidence - M.R.C.P. 60(b) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-09-2009 Appealed from: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: WILLIAM F. COLEMAN Disposition: AFFIRMED BOARD’S DECISION THAT CLAIMANT WAS EMPLOYEE OF APPELLANT Case Number: 251-08-397 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Sun Vista, Inc. |
NATHAN LAMAR PRESCOTT |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Department of Employment Security | LEANNE FRANKLIN BRADY | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Unemployment benefits - Independent contractor - Employee/employer relationship - Section 71-5-11(J)(14) - Hearsay - Newly discovered evidence - M.R.C.P. 60(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Alford signed an “independent contractor agreement” with Sun Vista, Inc. and began work on a construction crew. He later filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security. The MDES Board of Review found that Alford satisfied the statutory criteria and was Sun Vista’s “employee.” The circuit court affirmed. Sun Vista appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Employee/employer relationship Section 71-5-11(J)(14) provides that the relationship of employer and employee shall be determined in accordance with the principles of the common law governing the relation of master and servant. Under common law, the following factors are considered in assessing whether an employer/employee relationship exists: the extent of control exercised over the details of the work; whether the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; the skill requirement in the particular occupation; whether the employer supplies the tools and place of work for the person doing the work; the length of time for which the person is employed; the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; and whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer. The burden of proof is on the party attempting to prove a worker was not an employee. Sun Vista claims Alford was an employee of Medrano, who allegedly was an independent contractor of Sun Vista. However, the Board’s decision is supported by ample evidence that Alford performed a service for Sun Vista for wages. Further, Sun Vista has not sufficiently shown Alford was free from its control and subject instead to Medrano’s control. There is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision that Sun Vista actually exercised control over Alford, despite the terms of the contract between them. Evidence supported that Sun Vista set his work hours and provided some of his tools. There was no evidence of Alford’s interaction with customers. Alford was not required to provide his own insurance. Also, Sun Vista hired Alford to perform general construction work, which required no specialized training. Issue 2: Hearsay Sun Vista argues that the Board’s entire decision rests on uncorroborated hearsay testimony and does not satisfy the substantial-evidence standard. This issue is procedurally barred for Sun Vista’s failure to object to the testimony when offered to the Board. Issue 3: Newly discovered evidence Sun Vista asks the court to remand the case for consideration of newly discovered evidence, pointing to two documents. M.R.C.P. 60(b) provides for relief from a final judgment or decision based upon the discovery of new evidence. The “affidavit” relied on by Sun Vista is not sworn, which renders its reliability questionable. Sun Vista also seeks review of Medrano’s “independent contractor agreement.” This document is essentially the same agreement Alford signed with Sun Vista. The document might support (though certainly not determine) that Medrano was an independent contractor, but it in no way establishes Sun Vista’s claim that Medrano employed Alford. Neither of the two documents produced by Sun Vista is material nor likely to alter the outcome of the Board’s determination. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
