independent contractor issue whether there was an employer employee relationship under the act and as stated by the only supreme court in numerous times the question of whether an individual is an employee remains one of the poor unquote most  at issue we have you know only three cases that are in this context over the road drivers and this context is different because of the regulatory nature of over the road drivers those three cases you're familiar with them all they are the early case from one thousand nine hundred the weary case from two thousand and two the supreme court case in two thousand and seven rowson case these cases apply the because of the difficult thing because of the the facts specific nature if you will a lot of these cases the courts supreme court itself has said they have deference has to be given to the commission the fact that the factors here and there are factors on both sides both sides can list probably a couple dozen factors but when you look at where an early road were sent and you look at the keys on the his materials one of the routes to take was told to shave he was required to attend safety meetings at the company all the things i just listed are born here he was told where to park and not hear the record have here is the only factors that went the other way are the regulatory factors carriers have to comply with the department transportation rates and the e p a regs and here when you look at the list  be the right to control the nature of the work or to the most important thing definitely your honor ok let me go through a few things that are here responded we heard claiming to attend the hiring process and training required by that w fine correct and under no this visit we favor of an employer employee relationship no you are because under those cases people can apply to be employer employee or they can apply to be an independent contractor here  police to comply with federal rights and spelled rovers in the supreme court's decision doesn't make a conclusive determination is just one factor to be considered and when you look at how we are had those factors however really had those if you're asking somebody can i work for others and i want to do it all this time he he had a right to solicit his own low so i think that it doesn't indicate a way to control when you're talking about balancing as you said every case is going to have factors here there's no question that there was an independent contractor agreement there's no question it was entered into knowingly as a lots of cases where someone has an independent contractor agreement or they're still finding employer employee and those are situations where however if you look at the only the case that he decided we are makes it clear that it's a minor consideration because as was stated in where it would be inappropriate to allow employers to defeat the goals of the legislature to the heart factors all of the things about attending meetings about having a window about not having new rules designated about being free to choose his own quitman all those things about having his own shuras we have all the factors other than the regulatory factors which don't carry the here eight years the record is clear eighty years as an owner operator in the bank of america before applying to be an independent contractor with us he applied to be an independent contractor with plan his own insurance this is a company that hires both independent contractors and please the concern that the court rightly has and that quote your honor is employers looking to avoid their obligations under the little clan it is a company that tries hard to do it right they know that in order to have independent contractors they cannot have that control and they go out of the way not to and they did here and the right to establish is it mr putrid and wanted to have  control as your right to do and pay as he had a right to do being an independent contractor the flexibility controlling his own hours when he took his breaks to ted not attending meetings all those things he had only after the relationship ended and he was no longer driving them because they terminated the relationship and there's no retaliation claim that's not an issue in this case only after that was and he was only there about a month trying to most under contract even the first time claimed employer employee relationship and even had to be placed injury in the first series of medical reports he was writing on our ear and this is a personal driver with many years of experience who knows the told here then there would be a rule of law sensually a practical rule of law that you can have independent contractor relationships and over the road carriers going to regulate you know that it's not the really the natural implication looked at it and in the recent case they did hold the commission's decision but only after careful analysis and they didn't do it you know review because it's applying fast law but there is one legal issue here we'll tell you when they say when it's a close case are they talking about it being a close case employer employee relationship or an independent contractor case where they say it's a close case  has to be and again most employee verses and i think i've heard of decisions there's a real focus on making sure that employers are not meeting their obligations under the act and poirot it goes to the lines that clinton did heed to our its obligations under the act and employee who was making a very significant amount on his as an owner operator and testified that he knew the difference and he specifically asked to be an owner operator and up until last ride he was writing and doctors that he was an owner operator there are individuals who don't know the difference who can be taken advantage of the law stands in to protect those individuals mr beecher here was not one of those individuals the knowing nature of his decision the voluntary choice to be an independent contractor and this employer's ceding control on the factors that the supreme court says can carry the day may not regulatory things we think does cold were not using basic common sense there were no witnesses to the accident was no evidence of the accident and during the initial medical reports two days after he was describing things to the narrative of the doctor's ri were either a day before the day after the application for benefits where the injury by a guard on the records is tied to this and you see the background to that a statement that he had no history back problems and he was in fine health before  this information given to him by mr beecher i guess the thrust of our argument here is the employer employee relationship i realize the standard of difference in the privileges terminations added to that on the job injury but i do think that job and then he found out the variations that were offered and then he was call after this initial screening process called you look good with green bay now my understanding by reading consciously said if we get into the weeds here the route you have to take your equipment be at have to shave we're going to have you come to safety meetings we know we can't have a dependent contractors that's what suit to me contrary to the argument here the law says we can we did it the right way and we just said bigger here delivery there get it done just like the cases and say that's independent contractor they didn't read them doesn't carry the day as a matter of law it's in the briefs it's been here that is not in the same bucket is a factor but it's not the same by an employer employee relationship can be terminated and independent contractor relationship can be terminated all the contracts in the cases have the right to terminate and in fact