Court Opinion

ID: 9584429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:48:12.313444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:48.459864
License: Public Domain

Birdsong, Judge,
dissenting.
While I am aware of the "any evidence” rule, I do not think it applies to the instant case. The record in this case is devoid of any evidence of an employer-employee relationship between Charles E. Redding and Grady Voy les. To the contrary, the evidence proves either or both of the following: Voy les was either a part of a partnership or an independent contractor. On p. 18 of the record in response to a question by the attorney for the appellant, the appellee was asked the following question: "Q. and y’all are partners? [referring to appellee and Charles Stone] A. Right.” Page 19 of the record states: "Q. He gave you that because you are partners? A. Yeah, uh-huh.”
Appellee further testified that he and Charles Stone split what they got in pay and paid their insurance, income tax and social security out of this pay. This firmly establishes the appellee and Stone as a partnership. As a partnership, they are treated as employers and not as employees under the Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act. Scoggins v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co., 139 Ga. App. 805 (229 SE2d 683).
Even if it is assumed that appellee was not a partner, then he was an independent contractor. Appellee testified that Redding did not take out any income tax or any social security. Appellee testified that he was getting $25 a square and $1 a foot for work on a cornice. Appellee also furnished his own tools. There is no evidence that Redding ever exercised any control over the work of the appellee; furthermore, Redding’s own records showed claimant was not on his payroll. Clearly, as set forth in the opinion of Judge Webb, Coastal Timberlands v. Brown, 141 Ga. App. 800 (234 SE2d 373), appellee Grady Voyles was an independent contractor.
Had Redding so desired, he could have covered *524appellee as an employee "ordinarily exempt,” paid the premiums, and listed Voy les as an employee. This he did not do.
The uncontradicted testimony shows that Redding was charged a premium by Hartford based upon his payroll. The evidence clearly established that Voy les and -his partner Stone were not included in Redding’s payroll. The premiums paid by Redding did not include coverage for appellee. An agent for appellant testified without contradiction that no premium was charged involving appellee because he was an independent contractor. However, had the funds deducted been remitted to appellant and accepted, the coverage would have been for the employees of the subcontractors Grady Voy les and Charles Stone, and not to each individually. Simpkins v. Unigard Mut. Ins. Co., 130 Ga. App. 535 (2) (203 SE2d 742).'