On 17 August 2011, plaintiff Refik Ademovic filed a Form 18, "Notice of Accident to Employer and Claim of Employee, Representative, or Dependent" alleging a worker's compensation claim arising out of a shooting that occurred on 11 August 2011. Plaintiff alleged that he was shot in the face by a passenger while driving a taxi for defendant Taxi USA, LLC d/b/a/ Yellow Cab of Charlotte ("defendant Taxi"). Plaintiff also filed a Form 33 "Request that Claim be Assigned for Hearing" on 22 September 2011.
On 19 January 2012, defendants denied plaintiff's claim by filing a Form 61 "Denial of Workers' Compensation Claim." Defendants asserted that plaintiff was an independent contractor and argued that no employer-employee relationship existed at the time of plaintiff's injury.
On 30 May 2012, a hearing was held before Deputy Commissioner Chrystal Redding Stanback on the issue of whether there was an employer-employee relationship between plaintiff and defendant Taxi.
On 21 March 2013, Deputy Commissioner Stanback filed an Opinion and Award, finding as follows:
2. Plaintiff and Defendant Taxi USA, LLC d/b/a/ Yellow Cab (hereinafter "Defendant Taxi USA") entered into an Associate Agreement on November 19, 2010 allowing Plaintiff to drive a cab under Defendant Taxi USA's operating certificate. Plaintiff also executed an agreement indicating that he understood that he was a self-employed business person and that he was not an employee of Defendant Taxi USA for, among other things, workers' compensation insurance.
....
4. Defendant Taxi USA did not impose any additional rules or requirements in addition to those established by the City of Charlotte and the ordinances established by the City of Charlotte for Personal Vehicles for Hire....
5. Plaintiff owned his own taxi-cab and was responsible for any maintenance needed on the vehicle. Plaintiff paid all the taxes on the vehicle, and was responsible for maintaining automobile insurance on the vehicle. Plaintiff was free to use his vehicle for any purpose he chose, so long as he was not transporting a fare at the time. Plaintiff had the opportunity, when he picked up a fare, to provide the fare with information on how to contact him directly for future services, without going through the dispatcher for Defendant Taxi USA.
6. Plaintiff kept all the fares he earned. Defendant Taxi USA did not take any social security deductions out of the fares. Additionally, Plaintiff filed tax returns indicating that he was self-employed.
7. Defendant Taxi USA did not pay Plaintiff any wages. Instead, Plaintiff paid a weekly franchise fee of $195.00 to Defendant Taxi USA in order to maintain operation of his taxi cab under Defendant Taxi USA's operating certificate.
8. Defendant Taxi USA did not determine the days nor the number of hours that Plaintiff worked. Plaintiff was free to take off days as he wished.
9. Plaintiff was free to perform his taxi cab driver duties under his own control. He had the right to control both the manner and method of his duties, subject only to the guidelines established by the City of Charlotte for personal vehicles for hire.
10. Plaintiff had the choice of whether to use and accept calls from Defendant Taxi USA's dispatcher....
Deputy Commissioner Stanback concluded that there was no employee-employer relationship between plaintiff and defendant Taxi. Based on the foregoing, Deputy Commissioner Stanback concluded that the Industrial Commission did not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim and plaintiff was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits.
Plaintiff appealed the 21 March 2013 Opinion and Award to the Full Commission. The Full Commission heard plaintiff's appeal on 15 August 2013. On 21 October 2013, the Full Commission entered an Opinion and Award reversing the 21 March 2013 Opinion and Award and finding, inter alia, as follows:
3. In approximately November or December of 2010, plaintiff applied for work with defendant-employer as a taxi driver. Plaintiff signed a written contract with defendant-employer; said contract was prepared by defendant-employer. The language in the contract characterizes plaintiff as an independent contractor of defendant-employer....
4. Plaintiff did not own a taxi cab prior to applying to be a taxi driver with defendant-employer. Once plaintiff applied, plaintiff purchased a vehicle from defendant-employer to use as a taxi. This taxi was the only taxi that plaintiff owned or operated.
5. Plaintiff was provided equipment from defendant-employer for his work as a taxi driver. Defendant-employer provided plaintiff with a Blackberry which defendant-employer used to dispatch calls for potential customers to plaintiff. Defendant-employer also provided the top light attached to the roof of his taxi; the decals on the taxi which identified defendant-employer's business name and phone number; the taxi meter that also served as a backseat credit card device; and also provided a two-way radio. All the equipment provided to plaintiff by defendant-employer was necessary or required for plaintiff to drive the taxi.
6. When plaintiff picked up a customer from a dispatch call, there were two steps involved. First, plaintiff received the notification on the BlackBerry, which was termed a "bid offer". The Blackberry indicated only that a call had been dispatched to him and the amount of time plaintiff had left to accept the offered call. Plaintiff could choose to not respond to the bid offer. If plaintiff responded, he had to accept the dispatched call and pick up the customer and he would thereafter receive the customer's name and location from defendant-employer.
7. On 11 August 2011, plaintiff received a dispatched offer from defendant-employer on the Blackberry, which he accepted. The customer had called defendant-employer's phone number for dispatches. Plaintiff picked up the customer and took him to the requested destination. When they arrived, the customer shot plaintiff in the face with a gun....
8. As a result of the gunshot wound, plaintiff sustained a mandible fracture, a right condylar dislocation, and a large hematoma in the right masseter muscle. Plaintiff has gone through surgeries, and he still has metal bullet fragments lodged in his head. Plaintiff receives counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, paranoia, hypervigilance, social withdrawal, and panic attacks.
....
10. Although plaintiff was under the jurisdiction of the City of Charlotte, most, if not all, of his day-to-day dealings in his work, including any fines or penalties for not complying with ordinances or defendant-employer's rules, was with defendant-employer.
11. According to the contract with plaintiff, defendant-employer owned the company operating permit, the vehicle operating permit, and the driver's permit under which plaintiff operated his taxi.
12. Plaintiff paid a weekly franchise fee of $195.00 to defendant-employer in order to maintain operation of his taxi cab under defendant-employer's operating certificate.
....
15. Under defendant-employer's contract with plaintiff, the goodwill associated with the color scheme had great value in terms of its marketability to the public, because the public knew and recognized taxis painted yellow as being affiliated with defendant-employer. For this reason, the contract provided that the goodwill associated with defendant-employer's color scheme belonged exclusively to defendant-employer.
16. Plaintiff's taxi was required to be painted yellow, which corresponded to defendant-employer's unique color scheme with the City of Charlotte. When plaintiff purchased his taxi from defendant-employer it was already painted in accordance with defendant-employer's color scheme.
17. The top light and decals provided by defendant-employer for plaintiff's taxi had defendant-employer's name and telephone number (704–444–4444) for dispatches. The top light and decals were advertisements and marketing to the public to attract potential customers to call defendant-employer's dispatch service.
18. Plaintiff's taxi had to correspond with the color scheme and décor of defendant-employer. Even though plaintiff owned and had title to the taxi, he could not continue working for defendant-employer if he painted the taxi another color or if the taxi did not have the top light and decals advertising defendant-employer.
....
22. Based upon the preponderance of the evidence in view of the entire record, defendant-employer's business as a taxi service company is not independent and distinct from plaintiff's work as a taxi driver. Plaintiff's work as a taxi driver is a necessary and integral part of defendant-employer's business.
.... 29. Defendant-employer imposed penalties on drivers for non-compliance with the City of Charlotte ordinances, which the ordinances themselves did not provide.... ....
43. Based upon the preponderance of the evidence in view of the entire record, defendant-employer exerted sufficient control over pla
...
