The opinion of the court was delivered by: Patricia A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
Submitted: January 6, 2012
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge*fn1 HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH
Thomas R. Hartman (Claimant) petitions for review of the August 4, 2010, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which found that Claimant was a self-employed independent contractor rather than an employee of Bill Heilman Video Services, Inc. (Employer)*fn2 and denied Claimant benefits pursuant to section 402(h) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn3 For the following reasons, we reverse.
The facts of this case, as found by the Board, are as follows:
1. The claimant last worked as a videographer for [Employer].
2. The claimant taped various legal depositions or appeared in court to run the depositions for [Employer's] clients.
3. The claimant was free to accept or reject assignments from [Employer] without consequence.
4. At some point in approximately 2003, the claimant was offered an opportunity to work for [Employer] as an employee, but he rejected the offer.
5. The claimant informed [Employer] that he liked the flexibility that he had as a contractor.
6. The claimant was paid $150.00 for the first hour and then $50.00 thereafter for each subsequent hour.
7. The claimant was guaranteed $150.00 per job, regardless of whether it occurred or not.
8. The claimant was not required to attend
However, optional equipment clinics were offered. If
the claimant attended one of the clinics, he was not paid for his
9. The employer supplied the video equipment to the claimant.
10. The claimant was supplied with a uniform that he was ...