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

Five Common Pitfalls for Employers to Watch Out for Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

March 29, 2023The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets forth requirements for employers including, but not limited to, minimum wage, overtime pay, and recordkeeping for covered employees. These requirements are not as simple as they may appear on their face, which leads many employers to fall into compliance issues that they did not realize even existed.Client Alert

The NLRB Limits the Reach of Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions in Severance Agreements Overruling Trump-Era Policies

March 14, 2023Employers should exercise caution and closely examine the content of severance agreements to ensure compliance with a recent National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) decision.  On February 21, 2023, the NLRB restricted the breadth of permissible language of confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses when it issued its decision in McLaren Macomb and overruled its Trump-era decisions in Baylor University Medical Center and IGT d/b/a International Game Technology.Client Alert

Ohio Medical Board Releases New Telehealth Rules

February 23, 2023On Tuesday, February 21, 2023, the State Medical Board of Ohio released its final telehealth rules to implement Ohio’s telehealth statute (O.R.C. 4743.09) for physicians, physician assistants, dieticians, respiratory care professionals and genetic counselors. Ohio’s advanced practice registered nurses (“APRNs”) should also take note of these rules. While the Medical Board does not govern APRNs directly, those APRNs who are required to have a collaborating physician and standard care arrangement (namely nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and clinical nurse specialists) are still affected by the rules. Generally, if an APRN’s collaborating physician is limited in their practice, then the APRN will also be limited.Client Alert

The End of the Public Health Emergency is (Finally) Here

February 23, 2023The COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (“PHE”) that has been in effect for over three years is finally slated to end on May 11, 2023.[1] With the end of the PHE will come many changes for healthcare providers to be aware of; however, some changes may not come until much later.Client Alert

Multi-340B Contract Pharmacy Locations on the Brink? The Third Circuit’s Ruling Gives a Hint.

February 17, 2023The 340B drug discount program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer to sell their products at significant discounts to safety net providers called “covered entities.” In 1996, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) issued guidance authorizing covered entities to enter into a contract pharmacy arrangement with a single third-party contract pharmacy, to which the manufacturer would ship 340B medications but bill the covered entity. In 2010, HRSA issued revised guidance permitting covered entities to enter into an unlimited number of contract pharmacy arrangements.
Older posts
Newer posts