Opinion ID: 6343305
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The quality-control worker

Text: {¶ 45} The bureau determined that Lule, who performed quality-control services for Ugicom, was Ugicom’s employee. In reaching that conclusion, the bureau relied on testimony from Eyink, who deduced that Ugicom had been Lule’s sole source of income for a period. In the bureau’s view, Lule’s financial 3. Ugicom argues that the installers’ freedom to accept or reject a job, which entails their decisions whether they want to travel to a particular jobsite, may also be analyzed under the who-selects-theroutes-traveled factor set forth in Bostic, 37 Ohio St.3d at 146, 524 N.E.2d 881. Although the bureau did not consider this factor, Ugicom has persuasively established that the bureau conducted a flawed analysis under the details-and-quality-of-the-work factor. 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO dependence on Ugicom was evidence that he was not engaged in a business independent of Ugicom. {¶ 46} Ugicom contends that Lule worked as an independent contractor, noting that he held himself out to the IRS as self-employed and maintained his own workers’ compensation policy.4 We reiterate what we have said before: our role here is not to reweigh the evidence. See State ex rel. Turner Constr. Co. of Ohio v. Indus. Comm., 142 Ohio St.3d 310, 2015-Ohio-1202, 29 N.E.3d 969, ¶ 12. Even if some of the evidence tends to detract from the bureau’s decision, that is not enough to establish that the bureau abused its discretion. See Packaging Corp. of Am., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio-2871, 13 N.E.3d 1163, at ¶ 26. It suffices for the purposes of our review that some evidence supported the bureau’s determination that Lule was Ugicom’s employee.