Netmed Transcription Services v Clark
Digest No. 17.24
Cite as: Netmed Transcription Services v Clark, unpublished opinion of the Wexford County Circuit Court, issued June 2, 2009 (Docket No. 09-21560-AE).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Theresa Clark
Employer: Netmed Transcription Services
Date of decision: June 2, 2009
HOLDING: A claimant is an employee and not an independent contractor where the claimant’s services are integral to the employer’s business, the claimant depends on wages from the employer for living expenses, the claimant does not operate her own business, and the employer could discharge the claimant, had quality assurance standards and specific deadlines; and required the claimant to contact them to have work assigned.
FACTS: Claimant worked as a medical transcriptionist for the employer. Despite Claimant being hired as an independent contractor and receiving a 1099, she considered herself an employee. Claimant had to rent a computer from the employer, but the employer provided the software. Claimant had to provide her own reference material, phone, and internet connection. The employer provided clients and required that items were due in 24 hours. Claimant went to her supervisor, Tami Gregg, if she was having any problems or needed to go on vacation. The ALJ found that Claimant was an employee. The Board of Review affirmed.
DECISION: The Circuit Court affirmed the Board of Review’s decision. Claimant is not ineligible for benefits.
RATIONALE: The Board of Review applied the eight factor test laid out in McKissic v Bodine, 42 Mich App 203 (1972). Factor eight requires the factors to be weighed to “favorable effectuate the purposes of the Michigan Employment Security Act.” In doing so, the Board found that factors two, three, five, and seven predominated in favor of finding that Claimant was an employee.
Factor Two: Claimant’s services were integral to the employer’s business.
Factor Three: Claimant testified that she depended on wages from the employer for living expenses.
Factor Five: Claimant did not operate her own business.
Factor Seven: The employer could discharge Claimant, the employer had quality assurance standards and specific deadlines, and Claimant had to contact the employer for coverage or to have work reassigned.
Digest author: Andrea M. Frailey, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: November 3, 2017