and as far as i can tell sci is a is basically a contractor out of new york that comes in and helps companies set up these independent contractor relationships they came in two thousand and two and mr painter was presented with an independent contractor agreement which he sacked that the only thing that changed between when he was an employee when he was now under this agreement sci is that taxes were no longer taken out of his checks and that he was required to purchase his own insurance and that he received a four percent increase in his share of of the the business of you give him a call you need a package delivered some doubts over to pick it up and take it where it needs to go mr painter was simply a delivery driver with a truck and there is an intimate relationship between the type of business that staff paid by the hour for correct is paid by jeff so if he's called up and he refuses to jaf does that sound like he's a light by this company i would say that if he did in fact refuse jobs it would not be this it's not just whether you have the right to do something or not do something in a written agreement it's how it plays out in reality because a lot of these agreements have these type of clauses but the way that they're played out is you you really  really have a right to refuse because if they do they'll be terminated and in this case if you look at what actually happened he had the right to refuse taking deliveries any had the right to work for other companies he never worked for any other company and he never refused delivery a testified that if he did refuse a delivery his contract would be terminated which is exactly like an employee applicant is not correct or whatever it is was there other than his subjective assumption that is the only evidence that was that was  company really had no control of the vehicle that they went to a certain extent they did but what i would say is that they were going to be installing a g p s system which was scheduled to be installed in his vehicle right before he was injured and he was required to have their equipment installed in his vehicle in the other cases the summer cases on this issue the early case of the weird case is the exact same thing where the employee owned the agree that here although the company being able to stalls equipment in his vehicle and also put together with the evidence that he only worked for this company hence more towards the employee employer relationship as opposed to independent at the most important factors which is the right to control a long continuous relationship an exclusive relationship the fact that mr painter had to wear uniform with the company's logo on it  bread is becoming less of an important factor as control is becoming more important factor i would also say that as far as control over the day to day activities of mr paper in this case is quite a bit more than that  that just the as far as his work is concerned he was required to be available in a certain point in the day and then he received dispatches by way of a pager that was provided by the company company chicago's question i delivered he was on call twenty four seventh's and he had a few billable whenever they wanted to send him a dispatch so he could not work for anywhere or anywhere else he left working for this company to go and work for each other company for seven months and he worked for that company exclusively for that seven months and then came back to this company obviously didn't get fired didn't you tell me they want them to get in terminated because looked at all the factors and they credibly determined that the most important factor which is a ready control they went through they went through a number of things on the right to control and they found that that that points to an independent contractor relationship  there was testimony by the petitioner that in fact after he there were some changes after the relationship changed between himself and he responded in fact he too he told us that he was allowed to take more occasion he took  things that think we're going to work out more thinking about whether someone's an employer and a pretty contractor is how it is usually is it to move between jobs and that and that industry and if you're able to take your man and your experience occur and go drive for somebody else because you don't like the way things are going and that clearly shows more of an independent contractor situation and a situation where an employee is more tied to to the  an employee and before the relationship changed he paid some taxes on whatever he made he didn't pay taxes when he was an independent contractor he testified that he didn't pay taxes because income for that year according to what he told the air and where we look at that is what he's tried for them he you know they they have to be by federal law and have to be liable for for the vehicle during that time period while he's checking for them however that's all he was doing to deliver for them and he also testified that he used the van for his own purposes the times and it's clear from the contract that he could have driven for another company else and he in fact look is very deliver packages for somebody else for seven month period that's very different from the worst case where in that case yes it was his cap but it was very important to the court in that case it was in history and that that trailer in that particular case was actually quite expensive because it was delivering some flammable or some other type of goods in the trailer was actually a very expensive instrumentality and he it was the company's trailer that he was stored so it's very different here again it's a manifest where the evidence question i agree that the commission was probably incorrect in saying that none of the factors apply here but i think when you look at the balance take that just to respond to some of the questions you brought up as far as the method of payment changing from the time that he was a employee to the time that he was an independent contractor at least i need to put a country to agreement the method of payment did not despite whether it's required by federal law or the courts of address it doesn't matter if it is or if it isn't that that the exclusive loose use provision doesn't affect way favor of an employee lawyer relationship and that's direct it  not the reason that the conflict can be broken by either party at any time without any reason any consequences that's closer to an at will employee situation with an independent contractor if you broke the contract you have to pay the rest of the contract that's not the case here and that that also has been addressed by the courts but wasn't addressed by the commission the i want to just quickly address the right to control versus the act first is actual  control issue that came up and that's really the provisions of the independent contractor agreement that allowed mr painter to refuse deliveries of drugs for other ploys this sorry dry for the employers this is come up before and the cour those things without consequence that the agreement says that they get to do and in this case the only evidence is of mr painter did not get to do those things while he was working for the responded and he did not get to refuse deliveries