Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Norman Reagan v. James P. Quinn, Kenneth B. Holsinger and Joseph Centini, Trainer, No. A-73805.
Julius E. Fioravanti, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondents.
Judges Blatt, DiSalle and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
The appellant, Norman Reagan, appeals here from the disallowance of his application for workmen's compensation benefits by the referee and by the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board).
The appellant was injured in the course of his employment as a professional jockey and was denied benefits on the basis that he was an independent contractor rather than an employee. The record indicates that he was paid according to the results of a race, that he could select the horse owners he wanted to serve as well as the horses he desired to ride and that he paid his own income tax and insurance.
The relevant legal principles with regard to determining whether an employment relationship is that of employee or that of an independent contractor have been ably summarized by Judge Mencer in J. Miller Co. v. Mixter, 2 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 229, 232, 277 A.2d 867, 869, (1971). See Reasner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 292, 387 A.2d 679 (1978); Grant Builders v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 591, 382 A.2d 783 (1978). Recently Judge Wilkinson has carefully reviewed these principles as they must be applied in the case of a jockey and concluded that the actual control of the manner in which
the jockey's work was accomplished was in the jockey, and not in the owner of the horse, and that the jockey was therefore an independent contractor. Davidson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 42 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 30, 399 A.2d 1193 (1979).
We believe that Davidson, supra, controls here and we therefore affirm the disallowance of benefits.
The order of the Board is ...