An independent contractor, in contrast, is one who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods, without being subject to the control of his employer, except as to the final result of his work. Cole v. Town Country Exteriors, 837 S.W.2d 580, 584 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992), overruled on other grounds by Hampton v.Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003). An employee is distinguished from an independent contractor by the amount of control exercised by the alleged employer.
§ 287.495.1, RSMo 1986; Cole v. Town Country Exteriors, 837 S.W.2d 580, 583[3] (Mo.App. 1992). In addition, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the verdict, deferring to the Commission to resolve issues of witness credibility and the weight to be accorded conflicting evidence.
On this appeal, since the Commission affirmed and adopted the award denying compensation, we review the decision and findings of the ALJ as adopted by the Commission. Cole v. Town Country Exteriors, 837 S.W.2d 580, 583 (Mo.App. 1992). The standard of appellate review in Workers' Compensation cases is well defined.
On an appeal of a workers' compensation claim, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the decision, and affirm when the decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Cole v. Town Country Exteriors, 837 S.W.2d 580, 583 (Mo.App. 1992). In the absence of fraud, the findings of fact made by the Commission are conclusive and binding.
This court reviews findings of fact in workers' compensation cases in the light most favorable to the decision of the Commission, deferring to the Commission when it resolves issues concerning the credibility and weight given to conflicting evidence. Cole v. Town and Country Exteriors, 837 S.W.2d 580, 583 (Mo.App. 1992). This court affirms when the decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.
1993); Smart v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 851 S.W.2d 62 (Mo. App. 1993); Jackson v. Midwest Youngstown Industries, 849 S.W.2d 709 (Mo. App. 1993); Mann v. Supreme Exp., 851 S.W.2d 690 (Mo. App. 1993); Montgomery v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections and Human Resources, 849 S.W.2d 267 (Mo. App. 1993); Schneider v. Ashburn/Schneider Painting, 849 S.W.2d 271 (Mo. App. 1993); Pruteanu v. Electro Core, Inc., 847 S.W.2d 203 (Mo. App. 1993); Evans v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 849 S.W.2d 183 (Mo. App. 1993); Weeks v. Maple Lawn Nursing Home, 848 S.W.2d 515 (Mo. App. 1993); Gaston v. J.H. Ware Trucking Inc., 849 S.W.2d 70 (Mo. App. 1993); Pattengill v. General Motors Corp., 845 S.W.2d 630 (Mo. App. 1992); Wood v. Dierbergs Market, 843 S.W.2d 396 (Mo. App. 1992); Smith v. Arthur's Fashions, 843 S.W.2d 3 (Mo. App. 1992); Shores v. General Motors Corp., 842 S.W.2d 929 (Mo. App. 1992); Baltz v. Frontier Airlines, 842 S.W.2d 547 (Mo. App. 1992); Goleman v. MCI Transporters, 844 S.W.2d 463 (Mo. App. 1992); Cole v. Town Country Exteriors, 837 S.W.2d 580 (Mo. App. 1992); Mashburn v. Tri-State Motor Transit Co., 841 S.W.2d 249 (Mo. App. 1992); Reiner v. Treasurer of State of Mo., 837 S.W.2d 363 (Mo. App. 1992); Lawson v. Emerson Elec. Co., 833 S.W.2d 467 (Mo. App. 1992); Gudde v. Heiman Grain, Inc., 830 S.W.2d 574 (Mo. App. 1992); Young v. Handy Andy, 831 S.W.2d 947 (Mo. App. 1992); Bauer v. Custom Trailer Repair, Inc., 829 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. App. 1992); Carroll v. Loy-Lange Box Co., 829 S.W.2d 86 (Mo. App. 1992); Talley v. Runny Meade Estates, Ltd., 831 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. App. 1992); Lyons v. Lyons Truck Service, 831 S.W.2d 706 (Mo. App. 1992); Selby v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 831 S.W.2d 221 (Mo. App. 1992); Lenzini v. Columbia Foods, 829 S.W.2d 482 (Mo. App. 1992); Webber v. Chrysler Corp., 826 S.W.2d 51 (Mo. App. 1992); Jerome v. Farmers Produce Exchange, 826 S.W.2d 3 (Mo. App. 1991); Pattengill v. General Motors Corp., 820 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. App. 1991); Chambliss v. Lutheran Medical Center, 822 S.W.2d 926 (Mo. App. 1991); Fitzgerald v. Meyer, 820 S.W.2
Although not as straightforward, we are confident that the second element — that the injury occurred on the premises of the employer contracting for the work — was also satisfied. Wilson died in a highway crash — not at C.C. Southern's facilities — and, of course, a public highway is not the contracting employer's premises. See, e.g., Rutherford v. Tobin Quarries, Inc., 82 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Mo. 1935); Cole v. Town and Country Exteriors, 837 S.W.2d 580, 585 (Mo.App. 1992), overruled in part on other grounds, Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003). Premises, however, "should not be given a narrow or refined construction, but rather, in keeping with both the spirit and specific direction . . . of the [workers' compensation law,] should be liberally construed and applied. . . . `[P]remises' as there used contemplates any place, under the exclusive control of the employer, where the employer's usual business is being carried on or conducted[.
Employer argues that there is no case authority supporting the proposition that an open and public highway satisfies the criteria of a statutory employer's exclusive control of the premises. Employer cites Cole v. Town Country Exteriors, 837 S.W.2d 580 (Mo.App. 1992) in support. In Cole, claimant, an independent contractor, was injured on a public road one mile from the job site where he was installing siding for contractor Town Country Exteriors.
To the extent it conflicts with other evidence, this court defers to the commission's determination concerning weight of evidence and matters of credibility. Lane v. Schreiber Foods, Inc., 903 S.W.2d 616, 623 (Mo.App. 1995); Cole v. Town Country Exteriors, 837 S.W.2d 580, 583 (Mo.App. 1992). Point II is denied.
Employees and independent contractors are distinguished primarily on the basis of the amount of control the alleged employer has over them. Cole v. Town Country Exteriors, 837 S.W.2d 580, 584 (Mo.App. 1992). This is determined by considering such factors as: (1) whether the work is part of the employer's regular business; (2) whether the employment requires special skills; (3) whether the person is able to hire assistants; (4) whether the person's work is done with or without supervision; (5) whether the person must furnish his or her own supplies, equipment and materials; (6) whether a contract for a specific piece of work at a fixed price exists; (7) how long the person is employed; (8) how the person is compensated; and (9) the extent to which the person may control the details of his or her work. Maltz v. Jackoway-Katz Cap Co., 82 S.W.2d 909, 916 (Mo. 1934).