counsel and i would like to split our time equally the principal issue in this case is whether three s services qualifies as michael floyd's employer within the meaning of the worker's compensation a the treasurer's interested in this case because if the us is not deemed the employer then floyd's benefits will have to be paid to the fund and is important for all of the workers who rely on the find that employers be prevented from shifting their legitimate responsibilities if metro exercise control over and benefited from floyd's labor it is clear that three s did as well perhaps the best evidence that three s controlled floyd is smith's own testimony before the arbitrator that he intended it in his own words the idea behind me on corporation was that i could have the type of crane that i wanted and the type of operator that i wanted for three s services in other words he wanted to control floyd's labor for the benefit of yes moreover schmidt got the benefit of his bargain because it is undisputed that three us had first dibs on floyd's time it is the right to control that matters even if the right is not always exercise and  floyd did was incompatible with his being fiestas employee now there are a few cases that have a specimen discomfort with the idea of applying the joint employment standard in circumstances where the wages were not share but none of these cases and there is no case that has held that issue dispositive and there is one case that held that it was not dispositive and found that the question of who pays employees wages is only one factor to be considered employment in this context it should still uphold the commission's decision because the essential thing was the commission's finding that there was an employment relationship not what subcategory the relationship fits into the finding that the employer meets the definition of employer in section one hundred two of the act and this definition like the other provisions of the act must be liberally construed in favor of coverage and as your honor has mentioned the it is well established that the most important indicator of employment relationship is the right to control and that's why we're writing is so important in this case and that's the court and freeman was able to find an employment relationship even though it found that neither the borrowing lending paradigm nor the three s argues will has argued and will argue i'm sure that this court must respect metro's separate corporate identity but that is not so we don't argue that a separate corporate identity should be ignored it is considered as one of reason is that allowing three s to insulate itself from liability in this case would violate an important public policy because the act is not allow employees to waive their right to benefits nor does it allow employers to contract around benefits that policy would be nullified if all an employer had to do to achieve the same result is create a corporate shell around each employee now i realize that three s says that it didn't intend to defeat the act but only the union's policy is i'm skeptical that the fact that nobody ends up paying any for workers compensation insurance was a happy coincidence but even if that's right if the circuits quit such is not reverse the s please patricia cook on behalf of the injured work person mike floyd seven and a half minutes is a short period of time so i agree with everything she said but i'm going to add a few points the circuit court decision does have three errors and it also erred when it reversed the award of one thousand no penalties on the joint employment issue the circuit court found that the facts regarding the joint employment issue were quote not in dispute proceeded to apply i do know  employees vehicles equipment and premises with metro crane the problem is three s did not stipulate to these facts mike floyd prove these facts at trial but three s now were agreed to or stipulated to these fa so by definition these are just beautiful facts that required the commission to weigh the habit and and make factual determinations the joint employment issue couldn't be resolved without making factual determinations and this issue was never a question of law the circuit court applied the wrong standard of review it disregarded express on contradicted testimony on factual issues and it substituted its own findings for those of the commission and it got it wrong i ain't got it so wrong in that paragraph nine of the circuit court's decision that craig schmidt control and directed the work of mike florio did in craig's capacity as an officer of matrimony is actually contradicted by crags own testimony in the record the application of the wrong standard of review on the joint claim an issue is a fatal mistake and requires a rever on that issue when the correct standard overview which is the manifest weight standard is applied the commission's decision is easily reinstated the only question on the manifest weight is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record affirm the commission's decision and my brief has quite a few examples of this sufficient evidence in the record and her concerning the control the benefit billeted to hire and fire the commingling of source resources between the two companies i listed many examples of those misled brack gave a few of those already so there is absolutely penny for penny for every minute that my floyd worked on a three s job so that a certain course decision on the joint claim an issue and the associated arising under issue is wrong and should be her first with regard to the said story employment issue that is still a viable way to determine employment in this case the circuit court area when it decided that three  accident occurred away from the construction site and it incorrectly relied on help in this regard this issue in boston at torrey construction and is subject to the de novo standard overview here so there's this is a separate standard  withheld for weeks on end until i filed a motion for penalties and then the back t t d would be paid this went on for about two years during the time the three of us wasn't disputing the case they were disputing that they were responsible they just were not paying the benefits and they were not explaining that they didn't explain it at trial once they said they were disputing on the employment issue we didn't seek penalties for nonpayment after that they had proffered their gooden just ca and it didn't fall under nineteen out but for that period of time before that nineteen how sad is you have to pay and if you don't pay then you need to explain it and they'd never explained it they didn't object to the evidence trial there was no explanation so the penalties were absolutely appropriate under nineteen now and the language of one thousand now in the case law supports it i would like to go back to the statutory employment if i do have a couple more minutes the circuit court relied on help in for the statutory employment and help and can be distinguished from our case on three grounds first helping didn't involve a written contract that expects lead to find where the work was to be performed in our case we do have that three house was contractually obligated to mobilize the crane and it was further contractually obligated for the crane rental for so his work in driving the crane when he was hurt was contractually required and directly connected to the work of the principal reacts second health and hired henry van kirk he didn't hire the deceased in that case help and didn't even know that the deceased was working that day so the elements of supervision and control were missing in the help and in our case mike lloyd was specifically hired the principal and the young contradicted testimony is that three has controlled his activities every day whether it was a three s job or not three s job so the supervision and control elements that were missing in help and  present here the last way this case can be distinguished is that the supreme court help and relied heavily on the fact that there is no evidence in the record that the deceased was actually hauling sand when he was killed the principal in help please the court my name is steve wolf and i represent three of services of what i'd like to jump right into things that one thing that has to be absolutely clear is there is no dispute that there were two separate corporations three s and metro there's also no dispute that the claimant work for metro also there is no dispute that creation that at our ownership interest in both three s and metro where the dispute arises is in what capacity was craig smith acting when he gave direction or interacted with the claimant mr floyd well can i interrupt you there you said that there is no dispute that boy was working yes i think there is a s if i can respond first of all by reading from mr floyd's brief on page thirty one of their opening group and i'm quoting probate on forceful paragraph it is not disputed th employee employer relationship existed between mike floyd and metro it is also not disputed that metro's three s is uninsured so contra so all we know all by the stipulations i just read from we also know that mike floyd always works for metro my point was a crane operator the business of metro was operating a crane the business of three s was iron erection the businesses were completely different one relied upon another like the justices to believe that he was always speaking up we have three s in the back the matter is when craig schmidt interacted with mike floyd it was in craig smith capacity as an owner of a metro and the keys to very clear that these types of relationships happen quite often as an owner and shareholder of metro crane not as an owner insurer holder of three a services because of this separate reality separate separation of the two corporations three s had no control over metro they had separate bank accounts they were separately incorporated measuring the second hold as a specific matter was for the benefit three as a business that was that was one of the reasons yes that was the primary reason but in in reality we know that that's not brought the expertise and the client he went up to selected the current he repaired the current he identified what it needed service he operated the crane three a services had no experience no ability to do that and that wasn't their business their business was iron as a shareholder of metro crane the commission found a joint employer relationship is there any question that this involves question it doesn't involve over question effect because the basic facts are undisputed now there may have been an employment relationship with metro but the key here is also was there a joint employment relationship with her yes i would ask this question if i may well was mr floyd doing for three asked at the time of this action because it doesn't matter whether mr floyd would have been at some other time acting on behalf of three is all that matters is the time on this accident what was he doing on behalf of three of us nothing there's no dispute nobody saying that he and then you would have to accept the proposition that any time any seven contractor under any scenario is doing something pursuant to a contract with a contractor that he's working for that contractor we know it's not the case well you have that it might apply with other general and sub contractor relationships you've got that space effect circumstance coupled with everything that just sucks and i was just talking with you about and council just talked about in terms of  was involved to the extent that he was an owner of metro crane and that i believe is why the circuit court found that there was one disputed questions of fact and found that this was a question of law i agree with the supreme court if the panel does not agree if you look at the evidence even on the manifest weight standard that the manifest way the evidence is clear that they were separate corporations that they were run separately they had separate business they were operated that way that might floyd had ample opportunity to operate the crane was performed by someone from three of us doesn't mean the metro didn't exist we're not disputing that metro was and was a free standing independent corporation we're not trying to pierce the corporate veil and show that it was a sham it really didn't exist we know that metro really existed so had his paycheck here and distributed by the general i can some situations i'm sure they do but i can't answer that situation i can't answer the question really nat but there's no connection between a tool really well there's no question there's a connection error which is the would be the petition in this case should not i'm sorry would be the employer it would be three s in this case should not be held responsible for the safe patent passage of an employee over a road not in any way connected with or used in the work of the principal employer in over which highway he has no control whatsoever the statute is not in big us in plain language it says that shall not apply when the action occurs elsewhere then on in or about the immediate premises on which the principal has contracted the work be indicated that line brings in the statute because the stare at you if you read the statute why would that last section of the statute be there why would that last sentence be in the statute it says immediate premises that i'm reading from helping now does not mean an area of two and a half miles over which workmen travel republic highways and going to and from the place where the work of the principal contractor is being done but in helping him and the business involved in horses this would help an involved  the principle is the same the language of the statute is unambiguous on and or about the immediate premises ok you have any case that defines immediate premises in not h because helping doesn't involve upon the do you have any case that defines in or about the immediate premises where you have a contract that defines the location of the work you know but the contract doesn't the find the location of the contract just says we're going to pay portal for the transportation of the crane is clearly incidental to the work but it is not the heart of the work and the reason for that how can a general contractor in this or in this case three s have any control whatsoever over the circumstances of the work it's being done when it's not on the premises where the work is being done if the legislature had wanted it incorporate anything including this and that in the contract including transportation of a piece of equipment the statue could have been rebuffed or probably the statute was expressly written including those words on and or about the media premises both words have to have meaning and their natural and ordinary meaning is just what they say too know what it is i just i just like to say that that a big difference between this case and the nut case with respect to the that the main question of doing to employment is that the in the nut case the court found no control from another company in the in the little cluster of companies that was part of that case and and that the only relationships among the companies were that of customers and that just like to say briefly about the statutory employer case to give horses at lunch time and so and as counsel said that the difference here is that the injury here occurred in the course of work for which three s this isn't the contracted and the company had no less control over flight on the highway than any employer who contracts to have someone transport things on the highway the counsel for three has just ignores his own client's testimony pressure on himself testified that he played no management role in metro he said it came out of his own mouth he did not do it he had nothing to do with crane no management role as he did was pay the bills deal with the lawyers and sign the paperwork from the state cranks mint didn't deny mike floyd's testimony that he was required to get three the work to be done now mentions that ok talks about the premises but the premises are defined by the principles of contract you have any case like the similar to a question i asked counsel you have a case that just not it's just not an issue anymore so no i couldn't find that case the cases that i found were old cases the roadway cases can all be distinguished because as they didn't involve a contract that required him to be doing what he was doing when he was hurt on that roadway so now i would prefer a decision like the commissions on the joint employment issue that when required to go f