JAMES A LOOS JR V JB INSTALLED SALES INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JAMES A. LOOS, JR.,
UNPUBLISHED
November 20, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
J. B. INSTALLED SALES, INC., a/k/a J. B.
SUPPLY and ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
No. 275704
WCAC
LC No. 05-000246
Defendants-Appellants,
and
ROBINSON ROOFING,
Defendant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Our Supreme Court has remanded this case for consideration as on leave granted.1
Defendants J. B. Installed Sales Inc., and Accident Fund Insurance Company of America appeal
an order of the Worker’s Compensation Appellate Commission (the “Commission”) that
reversed a magistrate’s order denying plaintiff’s petition for benefits. Because we conclude that
there were no errors warranting relief, we affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral
argument under MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff fell from a roof and sustained injuries. Plaintiff alleged that at the time of his
fall he was employed by Robinson Roofing, which had contracted with J. B. Supply Installed
Sales Inc., to perform the roof work. The issue in this case is whether plaintiff was an
“employee” of Robinson Roofing, within the meaning of the Worker’s Disability Compensation
Act, at the time of his fall. If plaintiff were an “employee” of Robinson Roofing, an uninsured
subcontractor, then the principal, J. B. Supply Installed Sales Inc., would be liable for payment
1
Loos v J. B. Installed Sales, Inc, 480 Mich 990; 742 NW2d 125 (2007).
-1-
of worker’s compensation benefits. MCL 418.171. The magistrate determined that plaintiff was
not an employee of Robinson Roofing and the Commission reversed that determination.
The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.
McCaul v Modern Tile & Carpet, Inc, 248 Mich App 610, 615; 640 NW2d 589 (2001).
MCL 418.161(1)(n) defines “employee” in part as:
Every person performing service in the course of the trade, business,
profession, or occupation of an employer at the time of the injury, if the person in
relation to this service does not maintain a separate business, does not hold
himself or herself out to and render service to the public, and is not an employer
subject to this act.
These statutory factors have superceded the common law economic realities test. Hoste v Shanty
Creek Management Inc, 459 Mich 561, 572; 592 NW2d 360 (1999). Therefore, factors of the
common law test that are not incorporated into the statutory test are not to be considered. Id.; see
also Reed v Yackell, 473 Mich 520, 536 n 18; 703 NW2d 1 (2005).
We agree with the Commission that the focus of the magistrate’s analysis was misplaced.
For example, the magistrate considered plaintiff’s tax records to be “most relevant.” However,
factors such as whether taxes were withheld or whether plaintiff was issued a Form 1099 or a W2 were not incorporated into MCL 418.161(1)(n), and, therefore, reliance on such factors to
determine whether plaintiff was an “employee” was improper. Hoste, supra; Reed, supra. The
statutory factors must be the focus of the analysis. Thus, the Commission did not err when it
concluded that the magistrate’s analysis was legally flawed. The Commission properly refocused the analysis on the statutory factors, and the evidence relevant to those factors. Because
the Commission did not misapprehend its administrative appellate role and gave an adequate
reason grounded in the record for reversing the magistrate, and because there is evidence in the
record to support the Commission’s findings, we must affirm. See Mudel v Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Co, 462 Mich 691, 703-704; 614 NW2d 607 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.