Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas R. Hartman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

January 27, 2012

THOMAS R. HARTMAN, PETITIONER
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



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 training.[*fn4 ] However, optional equipment clinics were offered. If the claimant attended one of the clinics, he was not paid for his time.

9. The employer supplied the video equipment to the claimant.

10. The claimant was supplied with a uniform that he was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.