Illinois taxi driver establishes employment relationship but fails tp rove compensable injuries
The Illinois Workers' Compensation held that an employment relationship existed bewtween a taxicab business and the claimant-driver. However, the Commisison further held that the claimant failed to prove that her current condition of ill-being was causally related to her injuries from the work-related accident.
Case name: Brown v. AM Regional Taxi, 19 ILWCLB, 122 (Ill. W.C. Comm.2011).
Summary: Brown was working as a driver for the defendant's taxicab business when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant leased out taxis to drivers and dispatched the drivers to pick up and drop off passengers. The defendant's owner testified that the business owned more than 30 taxicabs with its logo and phone number painted on each cab. The cabs were leased to over 30 drivers who are controlled in a manner similar to Brown.
Brown testifed that she was employed by the defendant to operate a taxicab. She paid a weekly lease and dispatch fee and in turn was dispatched by the defendant to pick up passengers. She was required to report any passengers she picked up that were not dispatched by the defendant. Brown was also required to advise the defendant of her whereabouts at all times while she was on duty operating their taxicab. In addition, she had to take the cab to a specific repair facility when necessary. All repairs were paid for by the defendant. Based on this evidence, the arbitrator found an employer-employee relationship existed bewteen the parties.
The arbitrator explained that the defendant retained and exercised a sufficient degree of control over Brown's work activities. In so ruling, the arbitrator pointed to a similar decision reached by the Illinois Supreme Court in Yellow Cab Co. v. Industrial Commission.
The arbitrator further found that although the evidence established that Brown was involved in a minor motor vehicle accident, it was not clear that she sustained any actual injury as a result of the accident. Based on the totality of the evidence adduced at hearing, the arbitrator questioned the veracity of Brown's testimony. Although Brown received extensive pain management treatment, the medical records demonstrated that she was esentially daignosed with nothing more than a back strain or sprain and a neck strain or sprain. The arbitrator concluded that Brown did sustain accidental injuries which arose out of and in the course of her employment and that adequate notice of the accident was provided to the defendant, but Brown failed to prove that her current condition of ill-being was causally related to the work-related injuries.
