Court Opinion

ID: 9688037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:58:14.38423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:34.523783
License: Public Domain

SHORT, Judge
(concurring and dissenting).
I concur as to the result because the record does not reasonably support the Commissioner’s finding of a master-servant relationship. However, I dissent from the application of de novo review to the inferences that may be drawn from predicate facts.
Although we are free to review de novo the application of law to undisputed facts, the existence of an employment relationship constitutes the “ultimate fact issue,” which cannot be decided as a matter of law simply because the predicate facts are uncontested. See Darvell v. Paul A. Laurence Co., 239 Minn. 55, 62, 57 N.W.2d 831, 835 (1953) (stating the determination of an employment relationship is an “ultimate fact issue”); see also State by Spannaus v. Mecca Enters., Inc., 262 N.W.2d 152, 154 (Minn.1977) (treating the issue as a question of fact, which turns chiefly on the worker’s submission to control over the means of achieving a particular goal); Holzemer v. Minnesota Milk Co., 259 N.W.2d 592, 593 (Minn.1977) (same); Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 254 N.W.2d 672, 676 (Minn.1977) (same); Edelston v. Builders & Remodelers, Inc., 304 Minn. 550, 550-51, 229 N.W.2d 24, 25 (1975) (same); Hagberg v. Colonial & Pac. Frigidways, Inc., 279 Minn. 396, 403-04, 157 N.W.2d 33, 39 (1968) (same); Tretter v. Dart Transit Co., 271 Minn. 131, 134-36, 135 N.W.2d 484, 486-87 (1965); Frankle v. Twedt, 234 Minn. 42, 49-51, 47 N.W.2d 482, 488-89 (1951) (same); Turner v. Schumacher Motor Express, Inc., 230 Minn. 172, 175-76, 41 N.W.2d 182, 184 (1950) (same); Carter v. W.J. Dyer & Bro., 186 Minn. 413, 414-17, 243 N.W. 436, 437-38 (1932) (same); cf. Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 164 Ariz. 505, 794 P.2d 138, 141 (1990) (analyzing the employment-status determination as an ultimate fact issue, which may not be decided on a motion for summary judgment if the undisputed predicate facts would support multiple inferences); Fleming v. Foothill-Montrose Ledger, 71 Cal.App.3d 681, 139 Cal.Rptr. 579, 581 (Ct.App.1977) (same); Murrell v. Goertz, 597 P.2d 1223, 1225 (Okla.Ct.App.1979) (same), cert. denied (Okla. July 16, 1979); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 cmt. c (1957) (same).
In rare cases, the evidence may be so one-sided as to allow resolution of the employment-status issue as a matter of law. See Frankle, 234 Minn. at 51, 47 N.W.2d at 489 (adopting this approach, but limiting its application to circumstances in which the underlying facts are undisputed and support only one inference); Ledoux v. Joncas, 163 Minn. 498, 500-01, 204 N.W. 635, 636-37 (1925) (affirming an employment-status decision as a matter of law because “whether there is any evidence tending to support a given finding, and whether the evidence conclusively establishes a particular fact, are questions of law”); see also Santiago, 794 P.2d at 141 (recognizing the issue may be decided as a question of law if the facts are undisputed and support only one inference); Fleming, 139 Cal.Rptr. at 581 (same); Murrell, 597 P.2d at 1225 (same); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 cmt. c (same). However, calling the inquiry a question of law does not alter our standard of review.
There is but little dispute as to the facts, and the question presented is, in one respect, a question of law. But we are reviewing the finding of fact made by the referee and industrial commission, that the petitioner * * * was an employee of the realty company, hence not an independent contractor. So the question presented here, whether or not we call it a question of law, is whether there is evidence reasonably sufficient to sustain this finding. If reasonable minds could, on the evidence, reach different conclusions on the question, * * * this court must accept the[ ] finding.
*50* * * *
We do not try these cases de novo * * *.
Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84, 89, 149 N.W.2d 689, 693 (1967) (quoting Rick v. Noble, 196 Minn. 185, 189, 264 N.W. 685, 687 (1936)) (emphasis added); cf. Hunter v. Crawford Door Sales, 501 N.W.2d 623, 624 (Minn.1993) (referring to the employment-status determination as “ultimately, a legal one,” but applying the tests established by long-standing precedent). Nor does the standard of review change simply because the question arises in a reemployment insurance, as opposed to a workers’ compensation or tort, case. See Speaks, Inc. v. Jensen, 309 Minn. 48, 50 & n. 1, 243 N.W.2d 142, 144 & n. 1 (1976) (requiring courts to follow an identical employment-status analysis in reemployment insurance and workers’ compensation eases and citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 as an authoritative guide to the inquiry).
Our own precedent substantively adheres to the foregoing principles, which the newspaper recognizes by its request that we reverse because the evidence, viewed as a whole, does not reasonably support the Commissioner’s decision. Compare St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Sparrow, 378 N.W.2d 12, 14-15 (Minn.App.1985) (stating the determination of employment status presents a question of fact and reviewing the record for evidentiary support), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1986) and LeGrand Supper Club v. Seline, 348 N.W.2d 805, 807-08 (Minn.App.1984) (same) with Blue & White Taxi v. Carlson, 496 N.W.2d 826, 828-29 (Minn.App.1993) (calling the inquiry a mixed question of fact and law, but simply examining the record for evidence to support the Commissioner’s findings) and Lakeland Tool & Eng’g, Inc. v. Engle, 450 N.W.2d 349, 352-53 (Minn.App.1990) (same).
This court’s decision to subject an employment-status determination to the two-step analysis used in misconduct cases is ill-conceived. “Misconduct” is an undefined statutory term, which requires the trier of fact first to determine what happened and, then, to discern whether the legislature intended “misconduct” to encompass that behavior. See Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 373-75, 204 N.W.2d 644, 645-46 (1973) (accepting the administrative tribunal’s findings of fact, but construing “misconduct” as a matter of law). By contrast, the statute governing our inquiry expressly defines employment status in terms of master-servant law, under which precedent authorizes no more than an examination of the record for evidentiary support. See Minn. Stat. § 268.04, subd. 12(l)(d) (1994) (defining “employment” as services provided by an individual who is a servant under the law of master and servant). Although I agree the Commissioner’s decision cannot endure scrutiny under any standard of review, I dissent from this court’s decision to substitute its own judgment for that of the Commissioner concerning the inference to be drawn from predicate facts.