Pendola v. Milenio Express, Inc. d/b/a/ Classic, Docket No. A-0225-17T2, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2374 (App. Div., Decided Oct. 26, 2018)

Cab driver’s work found integral part of cab company’s business.

The petitioner, a cab driver, was injured in 2014 while picking up a customer. Although the facts of the incident were not in dispute, the parties agreed to bifurcate the trial to address whether the petitioner was an employee of the respondent or an independent contractor. At the conclusion of trial, and after applying the framework set forth in Pukowsky v. Caruso, 312 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div. 1998) for assessing a worker’s employment status, the judge of compensation concluded the petitioner was not the respondant’s employee. The judge found that the respondent “exercised very little control over the means and manner of Pendola’s performance” and that, based upon the arrangement of the parties, there was no intention that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent. This appeal ensued.

In reversing the judge of compensation’s holding, the Appellate Division relied on D’Annunzio v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 192 N.J. 110 (2007), where the court held that, in the setting of a professional person or an individual otherwise providing specialized services allegedly as an independent contractor, the trial court should consider three factors of the Pukowsky framework as most pertinent: (1) employer control; (2) the worker’s economic dependence on the work relationship; and (3) the degree to which there has been a functional integration of the employer’s business with that of the person doing the work at issue.

The Appellate Division found that it was undisputed that the petitioner was economically dependent on the respondent because he had been driving for them for eleven years as his sole source of income. As to the issue of control, the Appellate Division found that drivers were subject to the respondent’s rules. Of greatest significance, the Appellate Division found that the judge of compensation erred in finding that the petitioner’s work was not an integral part of the respondent’s business. Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that application of the Pukowsky framework established the petitioner as an employee of the respondent under New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law.

 

Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2019

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.