Opinion
Argued June 7, 1979
September 14, 1979.
Workmen's compensation — Professional jockey — Independent contractor.
1. A professional jockey who controls the manner of his own work is an independent contractor, not an employee, and is therefore not entitled to workmen's compensation benefits. [63-4]
Argued June 7, 1979, before Judges BLATT, DiSALLE and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1302 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Norman Reagan v. James P. Quinn, Kenneth B. Holsinger and Joseph Centini, Trainer, No. A-73805.
Petition with the Department of Labor and Industry for workmen's compensation benefits. Petition denied. Petitioner appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Denial affirmed. Petitioner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Julius E. Fioravanti, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondents.
The appellant, Norman Reagan, appeals here from the disallowance of his application for workmen's compensation benefits by the referee and by the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board).
The appellant was injured in the course of his employment as a professional jockey and was denied benefits on the basis that he was an independent contractor rather than an employee. The record indicates that he was paid according to the results of a race, that he could select the horse owners he wanted to serve as well as the horses he desired to ride and that he paid his own income tax and insurance.
The relevant legal principles with regard to determining whether an employment relationship is that of employee or that of an independent contractor have been ably summarized by Judge MENCER in J. Miller Co. v. Mixter, 2 Pa. Commw. 229, 232, 277 A.2d 867, 869 (1971). See Reasner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 36 Pa. Commw. 292, 387 A.2d 679 (1978); Grant Builders v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 33 Pa. Commw. 591, 382 A.2d 783 (1978). Recently Judge WILKINSON has carefully reviewed these principles as they must be applied in the case of a jockey and concluded that the actual control of the manner in which the jockey's work was accomplished was in the jockey, and not in the owner of the horse, and that the jockey was therefore an independent contractor. Davidson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 42 Pa. Commw. 30, 399 A.2d 1193 (1979).
We believe that Davidson, supra, controls here and we therefore affirm the disallowance of benefits.
The order of the Board is affirmed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of September, 1979, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.