Indus. Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Servs., Inc.

11 Citing cases

  1. Colo. Custom Maid, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office

    441 P.3d 1005 (Colo. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Second, the Panel held that the hearing officer failed to consider the totality of the circumstances, or the dynamics of the relationship between CCM and the cleaners, in concluding that the cleaners were customarily engaged in an independent business. See Indus. Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Servs., Inc. , 2014 CO 30, ¶ 2, 325 P.3d 560, 562 (requiring a totality of the circumstances test that evaluates the dynamics of the relationship between the putative employer and employee to determine whether an individual is engaged in an independent trade or business). ¶7 On remand, the hearing officer made additional factual findings and again concluded that the cleaners were independent contractors.

  2. Sw. Appraisal Grp., LLC v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act.

    324 Conn. 822 (Conn. 2017)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting claim of administrator that board's interpretation of part C of ABC test was time tested in light of "fact sensitivity" of board's decisions

    The plaintiff emphasizes that this interpretation of part C will have "practical implications ... damning to Connecticut industry," especially in difficult economic times, by tying the legitimacy of an independent contractor relationship to the putative contractor's business success. Arguing that the trial court improperly relied on our decision in JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act , 265 Conn. 413, 420, 828 A.2d 609 (2003), the plaintiff also cites sister state cases such as Industrial Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Services, Inc. , 325 P.3d 560 (Colo. 2014), and In the Matter of the Appeal of Hendrickson's Health Care Service , 462 N.W.2d 655 (S.D. 1990), and contends that the "focus [instead] should be on the steps taken and efforts made by the putative independent contractor to perform work for others and secure compensation for those services." The plaintiff then argues that, when a proper totality of the circumstances analysis is applied to the facts in the record, it demonstrates that Draco, Patrick, and Kehoe were independent contractors during the audit period.

  3. Black Hills Adventure Lodging, LLC v. S. Dakota Dep't of Labor & Regulation

    2025 S.D. 4 (S.D. 2025)

    A Special Touch v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus., 228 A.3d 489, 505 (Pa. 2020); see also Sw. Appraisal Grp., LLC v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 155 A.3d 738, 749 (Conn. 2017); Indus. Claim Appeals Off. v. Softrock Geological Servs., Inc., 325 P.3d 560, 562 (Colo. 2014); Bloomington Area Arts Council v. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 821 N.E.2d 843, 853 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005). In doing so, courts have acknowledged the need to consider the "totality of the circumstances" and "evaluate[] the [unique] dynamics of the relationship between the putative employee and the employer; there is no dispositive single factor or set of factors."

  4. W. Logistics, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of State

    325 P.3d 550 (Colo. 2014)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Whether an individual worked for another is not dispositive of whether the individual was engaged in an independent business. Indus. Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Servs., Inc., 2014 CO 30, ¶ 18, 325 P.3d 560. Rather, as we held in Softrock, determining whether an individual is an employee requires an expansive inquiry into the dynamics of the relationship between the putative employee and the employer. Id. at ¶ 2.

  5. Varsity Tutors LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo.

    488 P.3d 258 (Colo. App. 2017)

    Id. ¶ 38 Returning to the question of whether a worker was "customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business related to the service performed," our supreme court has made four salient points to guide this inquiry. Indus. Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Servs., Inc. , 2014 CO 30, ¶ 1, 325 P.3d 560 (citation omitted). ¶ 39 First, the question is one of fact that "can only be resolved by analyzing several factors," and not merely the single factor of whether a worker worked for a business.

  6. Bermel v. BlueRadios, Inc.

    442 P.3d 923 (Colo. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    In that context, a multi-factor test, in which no one factor is determinative, is used to assess whether an individual is engaged in an independent business. See Indus. Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Servs., Inc. , 2014 CO 30, ¶¶ 15, 16, 325 P.3d 560. Id.

  7. Whitewater Hill, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of State

    345 P.3d 984 (Colo. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times
    Rejecting the Panel's interpretation of the Act because it failed to give effect to all the language in the statute

    Commc'ns Workers of Am. 7717 v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 2012 COA 148, ¶ 7, 292 P.3d 1127; seeIndus. Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Servs., Inc., 2014 CO 30, ¶ 9, 325 P.3d 560 (“[W]hether the ICAO ... applied the appropriate test is a question of law that we review de novo.”). B. Agricultural Labor/Covered Employment

  8. Mason v. Fantasy, LLC

    Civil Action No. 13-cv-02020-RM-KLM (D. Colo. Jul. 27, 2015)   Cited 8 times

    Both of those cases, rather, involve Colorado's definition of employment under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115. Fourth, both of the cases upon which Plaintiffs rely have been abrogated, in pertinent part, as to how Plaintiffs rely upon them, by Indus. Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Servs., Inc., 325 P.3d 560, 565-66 (Colo. 2014) (holding that whether an individual is engaged in an independent business for purposes of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115, is to be resolved by "applying a totality of the circumstances test that evaluates the dynamics of the relationship between the putative employee and the employer; there is no dispositive single factor or set of factors"). Further, the Court notes that the CMWA defines "employee" in reference to facts that are not before the Court.

  9. Pella Windows & Doors, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of State

    458 P.3d 128 (Colo. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Opinion by JUDGE RICHMAN ¶1 In this case, we consider whether the independent contractor test adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court in Industrial Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Services, Inc. , 2014 CO 30, 325 P.3d 560, an unemployment case, applies to workers’ compensation actions. We determine that the Softrock standard applies but conclude that the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) exceeded its authority by disregarding the findings of fact made by the administrative law judge (ALJ).

  10. Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Galvan

    457 P.3d 749 (Colo. App. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    So, for us to consider these issues now is premature. See Softrock Geological Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 2012 COA 97, ¶ 6, 328 P.3d 222, aff’d , 2014 CO 30, 325 P.3d 560. ¶ 24 To sum up, a judgment lien is not a prerequisite to obtaining a writ of execution.