Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Motor Carriers Beware - Lack of Written Independent Contractor Agreement Can Be Costly

Client Alert
February 18, 2020

Given recent changes in Ohio workers’ compensation law, “motor carriers” (as defined by Ohio law) operating in Ohio should carefully review their arrangements with independent contractor drivers and promptly implement changes to ensure compliance with statutory criteria. 

This past year, the Ohio Legislature revised the definition of “employee” as applicable to motor carriers. The statutory revisions can be viewed as either a burden or benefit to the motor carrier. For the motor carrier that carefully examines its practices and ensures compliance with the statutory criteria, the new law can certainly be viewed as additional protection against increased exposure to administrative actions, lawsuits, and substantially higher workers’ compensation premiums. 

Until recently, Ohio courts and the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (and Industrial Commission) utilized a test developed at common law to determine whether a driver performing services for a motor carrier was an independent contractor or employee. The common law test required an analysis as to whether the carrier controlled the means and manner of the driver’s work – a test often subject to inconsistent application and, consequently, inconsistent rulings by the applicable tribunal. Motor carriers were left with little direction. 

Revised Code 4123.01(A)(1)(d) provides the motor carrier with a test which, if followed, should help the decision-maker find that the carrier’s independent contractors remain as such in the eyes of administrative agencies and the courts. If the driver meets the following seven criteria, the driver will likely not be regarded as an “employee” for purposes of workers’ compensation: 

  1. The contractor owns the vehicle or vessel that is used in performing the services for or on behalf of the carrier, or the contractor leases the vehicle or vessel under a bona fide lease agreement that is not a temporary replacement lease agreement. For purposes of this division, a bona fide lease agreement does not include an agreement between the contractor and the motor carrier transporting property for which, or on whose behalf, the person provides services;
  2. The contractor is responsible for supplying the necessary personal services to operate the vehicle or vessel used to provide the service;
  3. The compensation paid to the contractor is based on factors related to work performed, including on a mileage-based rate or a percentage of any schedule of rates, and not solely on the basis of the hours or time expended;
  4. The contractor substantially controls the means and manner of performing the services, in conformance with regulatory requirements and specifications of the shipper;
  5. The contractor enters into a written contract with the carrier for whom the contractor person is performing the services that describes the relationship between the contractor and the carrier to be that of an independent contractor and not that of an employee;
  6. The contractor is responsible for substantially all of the principal operating costs of the vehicle or vessel and equipment used to provide the services, including maintenance, fuel, repairs, supplies, vehicle or vessel insurance, and personal expenses, except that the carrier may pay the contractor from the carrier’s fuel surcharge and for incidental costs, including tolls, permits, and lumper fees; and
  7. The contractor is responsible for any economic loss or economic gain from the arrangement with the carrier. 

With this test, motor carriers operating in Ohio should expect greater predictability in terms of application and enforcement. Motor carriers that do not effectively implement the necessary changes may find themselves deemed “noncomplying” by BWC and thus subject to costly lawsuits by injured drivers, loss of common law defenses, and administrative enforcement proceedings and assessments. Note that this test is also now used to determine the driver’s status for purposes of unemployment compensation and minimum wage and overtime laws. Motor carriers should be quick to examine their written agreements and practices.

For more information on these recent changes, contact Stephen Matasich or Richard Williger.

Motor CarriersOhio Bureau of Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorStephen E. MatasichRichard Williger
Client Alert

Update on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Related Countries

July 13, 2026USCIS has temporarily extended Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries from Haiti and several other countries following recent court action. Employers and TPS recipients should review EAD expiration dates, monitor ongoing developments, and ensure compliance with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements.Client Alert

HHS Accessibility Requirements for Medical Diagnostic Equipment: What Health Care Providers Need to Know

July 8, 2026Health care providers that receive federal financial assistance are now subject to updated HHS accessibility requirements for medical diagnostic equipment under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. With the July 8, 2026, compliance deadline in effect, covered providers should ensure they have the required accessible equipment, train staff, and review operational practices to reduce compliance risk and provide accessible care for patients with disabilities.Client Alert

Florida Super Lawyers® Recognizes Brennan Manna Diamond Attorneys to the 2026 Lists

June 26, 2026BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND is proud to announce that three of our attorneys have been designated to the 2026 Florida Super Lawyers® and Florida Rising Stars® lists. Super Lawyers is based on multiple categories of independent research and peer evaluation to identify outstanding lawyers.Client Alert

Supreme Court Clears Path for TPS Terminations: What Employers Need to Know

June 25, 2026The U.S. Supreme Court's June 25, 2026 decision in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot removed legal obstacles that had delayed the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Syria. The ruling also reinforces the administration's authority to terminate other TPS designations currently under review. Employers should immediately identify workers whose employment authorization is tied to affected TPS programs, review Form I-9 records, and prepare for forthcoming USCIS guidance before taking any employment action.Client Alert

The Risks of Outsourcing Medical Billing and the Importance of State-Law Compliance

June 24, 2026Offshoring medical billing and other administrative functions can reduce costs, but it also raises significant compliance, operational, and contractual risks. Although HIPAA does not explicitly prohibit protected health information from being accessed or stored outside the United States, healthcare providers and their vendors remain responsible for safeguarding patient information and complying with state-specific restrictions that may limit or prohibit offshore subcontracting.
Older posts