Court Opinion

ID: 9851734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:18:47.636487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:14.152681
License: Public Domain

Bussey, Justice
(dissenting) :
The commission found as a fact that the claimant was an employee of Keith Taylor and hence a statutory employee of the appellant at the time of his injury and entitled to compensation. Such finding of fact, in my opinion, had abundant support in the evidence and is accordingly binding upon this Court. It is true that portions of the testimony of Keith Taylor, particularly when considered in the light most favorable to the appellant, would support the conclusion that the claimant was only a casual employee, but his testimony is not the only relevant evidence and moreover such is not entirely free of ambiguity.
To show the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that the claimant was an employee of Keith Taylor, and not merely a casual one, it is sufficient to note only the following testimony of the claimant himself.
“Q. Mr. P-rivette, how long had you been working for Mr. Taylor?
“A. I had been working for him right at a year at that time.
“Q. About how many days a week did you average working for him during the year?
“A. I would average about twenty-five or thirty hours a week, because a lot of times I was working a solid week on jobs and then maybe a week I wouldn’t work for him.
“Q. And he paid you at the rate of $40.00 a day?
“A. Yes, sir, unless I worked my equipment and then he would pay me so much for it.”
*125The findings of fact by the hearing commissioner and the full commission being clearly supported by the evidence, the judgment should be,
Affirmed.
Lewis, J., concurs.