COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Annunziata and Senior Judge Cole 

BETTER HOME SERVICES, INC. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1776-00-4 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 21, 2000 

ISABEL MEDRANO AND 

 UNINSURED EMPLOYER'S FUND 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (John J. O'Donnell, Jr., on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Arturo Hernandez, on brief), for appellee 

Isabel Medrano. 

 No brief for appellee Uninsured Employer's 

Fund. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 Better Home Services, Inc. ("BHS") contends that the 

Workers’ Compensation Commission erred in finding that Isabel 

Medrano (claimant) was its employee rather than an independent 

contractor at the time of her compensable injury by accident. 

Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we 

conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm the commission’s decision. See Rule 5A:27. 

 "The Workers' Compensation Act covers employees but not 

independent contractors." County of Spotsylvania v. Walker, 25 

Va. App. 224, 229, 487 S.E.2d 274, 276 (1997). This distinction 
must be determined from the facts of each case, with the burden 

upon the person seeking benefits under the Act to prove the 

relationship contemplated by the Act. Id. at 229-30, 487 S.E.2d 

at 276; see Code § 65.2-101. Although the commission's factual 

findings are binding and conclusive on appeal, when they are 

supported by credible evidence, see James v. Capitol Steel 

Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989), a 

"[d]etermination of the relationship involves a mixed question 

of law and fact which is reviewable on appeal." County of 

Spotsylvania, 25 Va. App. at 230, 487 S.E.2d at 276. 

 Generally, an individual "'is an employee if he works for 

wages or a salary and the person who hires him reserves the 

power to fire him and the power to exercise control over the 

work to be performed. The power of control is the most 

significant indicium of the employment relationship.'" 

Behrensen v. Whitaker, 10 Va. App. 364, 367, 392 S.E.2d 508, 

509-10 (1990) (quoting Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Gill, 224 

Va. 92, 98, 294 S.E.2d 840, 843 (1982)). 

[T]he right of control includes not only the 

power to specify the result to be attained, 

but the power to control "the means and 

methods by which the result is to be 

accomplished." An employer/employee 

relationship exists if the party for whom 

the work is to be done has the power to 

direct the means and methods by which the 

other does the work. "[I]f the latter is 

free to adopt such means and methods as he 

chooses to accomplish the result, he is not 

an employee but an independent contractor." 

- 2 -
Intermodal Servs., Inc. v. Smith, 234 Va. 596, 601, 364 S.E.2d 

221, 224 (1988) (citations omitted). 

 In holding that an employee/employer relationship existed 

between claimant and BHS, the commission found as follows: 

 Both parties point to different 

documents designating the claimant either as 

a subcontractor or an employee. BHS notes 

that the claimant signed a subcontractor 

agreement with BHS in 1993. The claimant 

points out that [Yvonne] Elton[, BHS's 

owner,] represented the claimant as an 

employee on the claimant's green card 

applications. 

 While these documents are indicative of 

the parties' intent, and the intent of the 

parties is a factor to be considered, it is 

not determinative. The parties cannot 

merely designate or agree to a legal status 

in derogation of the relationship as 

established by the facts of a particular 

case, but the Commission must look behind 

the agreement to determine the actual 

relationship and the "status in fact." 

* * * * * * * 

 Ms. Elton did more than just solicit 

the cleaning work. In addition, to 

solicitation, Ms. Elton determined each 

day's work schedule by providing the 

addresses of the houses and the order in 

which to clean the houses. [BHS] paid 

homeowners for any damage and Ms. Elton 

would charge each worker. Ms. Elton was the 

primary contact point. If a homeowner had a 

problem, the homeowner would contact Ms. 

Elton and Ms. Elton would try to remedy it. 

It is of little moment that Ms. Elton 

remedied the problem by enlisting the help 

of the supervisors. Ms. Elton had complete 

control over the supervisors by determining 

which worker would be promoted to 

- 3 -
supervisor. The relationship was not one of 

cooperation but of subordination. 

(Footnote omitted.) 

 The commission's findings are amply supported by credible 

evidence in the record. Claimant's testimony proved that Yvonne 

Elton hired claimant in 1993 to clean houses. At that time, 

Yolanda, a driver/supervisor employed by BHS, trained claimant. 

In 1995, Elton made claimant a driver/supervisor. Claimant held 

this position at the time of her accident. 

 In her position as a driver/supervisor, BHS gave claimant a 

list of houses to clean each day. Claimant was then required to 

pick up the other workers and drop them off at the specific 

houses while driving a BHS van. The van was leased from BHS 

Leasing, a company owned by Elton's husband, to claimant. 

Claimant testified that in 1996, Elton took her and other 

drivers to get insurance on the vehicles. The named insured on 

the policy of insurance on the vehicle being driven by claimant 

at the time of her accident was "Izabel Medrano DBA BHS Vehicle 

Leasing." Claimant believed that the vans were leased to BHS. 

 Claimant was responsible for training the workers and for 

making sure the houses were properly cleaned. Claimant 

testified that BHS provided vacuums, brooms, and mops, which 

claimant picked up each morning and returned at the end of the 

day. She stated that at times, BHS provided cleaning supplies 

and at times, the homeowner provided the cleaning supplies. 

- 4 -
 For housecleaning, BHS paid claimant thirty-five percent of 

the fee charged to the homeowner. For driving, BHS paid 

claimant $500 every two weeks. She was not paid for travel 

between homes. She and the other workers were given 1099 forms, 

and BHS did not withhold any taxes or social security from their 

earnings. 

 During the time claimant worked for BHS, she did not work 

for anyone else and she did not clean houses on her own, 

believing this was prohibited by BHS. She had to ask Elton for 

permission to miss a day of work. Elton admitted that she fired 

claimant after her accident, because claimant refused to sign a 

document stating that she was a subcontractor. 

 Mirna Villalta, another BHS worker, testified that claimant 

was her supervisor and trained her. She stated that claimant 

drove the van and checked the work. At that time, there were 

twenty-four to twenty-five people working for BHS. Villalta 

testified that she did not work for anyone else and she was 

required to inform Elton if she was going to miss work, 

otherwise Elton would be "very upset." Villalta stated that if 

she broke something while on the job, Elton would be notified 

and she would charge Villalta for the broken item. Villalta 

agreed that Elton provided vacuum cleaners and other equipment 

and sometimes provided cleaning supplies. 

 The testimony of claimant and Villalta support the 

commission's findings. Contrary to employer's contention, the 

- 5 -
use of a system of supervisors to accomplish the work did not 

change the relationship between BHS and claimant from one of 

employer/employee to an independent contractor relationship. 

Based upon this evidence, the commission could reasonably 

conclude that BHS exercised the requisite control over claimant 

to make her its employee. For these reasons, we affirm the 

commission's decision. 

Affirmed.

- 6 -