Opinion ID: 6343305
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ugicom I

Text: {¶ 2} In 2009, the bureau audited Ugicom to ensure that Ugicom had paid the correct amount of workers’ compensation premiums for the period of January 1, 2004, through June 30, 2009.1 Mary Jo Eyink, an auditor with the bureau, conducted the audit. Based on her findings, Eyink determined that Ugicom had exercised “too much control” over workers to whom it had issued Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Forms 1099, leading the bureau to designate those workers as Ugicom’s employees for workers’ compensation purposes and resulting in a $346,817.55 invoice to Ugicom for unpaid premiums.2 {¶ 3} After unsuccessfully challenging those findings through the bureau’s administrative process, Ugicom filed an original action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus ordering vacatur of the bureau’s decision that the workers were Ugicom’s employees. See State ex rel. Ugicom Ents., Inc. v. Buehrer, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-527, 2014-Ohio-4942, ¶ 1, 7-9 (“Ugicom I”). The court of appeals granted the writ on the ground that the bureau had erred 1. The bureau later extended the audit period through June 30, 2012, and then again through June 30, 2015. But the bureau stated that its decision concerned only Ugicom’s protest against the findings for the initial audit period. 2. “[A] Form 1099 is used by independent contractors to report income to the federal government.” Hopkins v. Duckett, D.N.J. No. 02-5589, 2006 WL 3373784 (Nov. 21, 2006), fn. 2. 2 January Term, 2022 in relying on the 20-factor test under R.C. 4123.01(A)(1)(c) for determining whether a “person who performs labor or services pursuant to a construction contract” is an employee for workers’ compensation purposes. Ugicom I at ¶ 14, 28. The court of appeals explained that the test was inapplicable because this “case does not concern a construction contract, as that term is defined in R.C. 4123.79(C)(2).” Id. at ¶ 14. The court of appeals directed the bureau to issue a new order addressing Ugicom’s challenge. Id. at ¶ 28.