ARGUMENT
I. THE PETITIONER, IN THIS CASE, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF PLUS BUILDING, INC., AND NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Respondent claims that Petitioner Mr. Kroplewski was not an employee of Plus Building, Inc., but an independent contractor. Although there is no rigid rule of law to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists between parties, such determination depends on the particular facts of the case. The range of factors is considered in making that determination including the right to control the manner in which the work is done, the method of payment, the right to discharge, the skill required, and who provided the materials, tools, and equipment. Morgan Cab Co. V. Industrial Comm’n 93 Ill 2d 66, 71 (1982).
In the case at bar, Petitioner had no control at all over the manner in which he accomplished his work. He was told by his foreman exactly how the work was supposed to get done, and how he was supposed to accomplish each particular job. …show more content…
v. Bill’s Builders, Inc., there are no executed and signed documents between the parties that would demonstrate an intent on behalf of the Petitioner to be exempt from the operation of the Act. There is no insurance application signed by the Petitioner, as well as there is no evidence that would suggest the Petitioner ever discussed or was even aware of the effects of the policy exclusion. Unlike in Virginia Surety Co. v. Bill’s Builders, Inc., in this case, it was the first time Petitioner ever purchased workers' compensation insurance and was not aware of the effects of excluding himself from the workers' compensation insurance coverage. A corporate officer may withdraw from the protection of the Act by providing written notice, however, in this case, there is no signed insurance application, as well as there is no signed notice of the Petitioner withdrawing from the protection of the Act or the workers’ compensation insurance he
I. THE PETITIONER, IN THIS CASE, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF PLUS BUILDING, INC., AND NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Respondent claims that Petitioner Mr. Kroplewski was not an employee of Plus Building, Inc., but an independent contractor. Although there is no rigid rule of law to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists between parties, such determination depends on the particular facts of the case. The range of factors is considered in making that determination including the right to control the manner in which the work is done, the method of payment, the right to discharge, the skill required, and who provided the materials, tools, and equipment. Morgan Cab Co. V. Industrial Comm’n 93 Ill 2d 66, 71 (1982).
In the case at bar, Petitioner had no control at all over the manner in which he accomplished his work. He was told by his foreman exactly how the work was supposed to get done, and how he was supposed to accomplish each particular job. …show more content…
v. Bill’s Builders, Inc., there are no executed and signed documents between the parties that would demonstrate an intent on behalf of the Petitioner to be exempt from the operation of the Act. There is no insurance application signed by the Petitioner, as well as there is no evidence that would suggest the Petitioner ever discussed or was even aware of the effects of the policy exclusion. Unlike in Virginia Surety Co. v. Bill’s Builders, Inc., in this case, it was the first time Petitioner ever purchased workers' compensation insurance and was not aware of the effects of excluding himself from the workers' compensation insurance coverage. A corporate officer may withdraw from the protection of the Act by providing written notice, however, in this case, there is no signed insurance application, as well as there is no signed notice of the Petitioner withdrawing from the protection of the Act or the workers’ compensation insurance he