## Facts

- James Robert McCown, a roofer with about ten years of experience, was hired to re-roof a rental house owned by Mike Hines; Curtis Hines (Mike’s father) arranged the job and had previously hired McCown for various projects.
- The parties disputed compensation: McCown believed he would be paid hourly (based on prior work), while the Hineses asserted payment was per “square” (piece-rate) and not hourly.
- The re-roofing lasted about three days and was limited to that single project.
- McCown set his own work hours, came and went without fixed times, and took his own breaks.
- McCown supplied some of his own tools/equipment (e.g., hammer and nail apron), while other materials and tools were provided at the jobsite.
- Mike and Curtis were only intermittently present and did not direct the technical details of roofing; Curtis gave limited instructions about using old mismatched shingles and placing them to achieve a particular appearance.
- McCown fell from the roof on April 8, 1996, suffered a spinal cord injury, and became permanently disabled.
- After the injury, Mike paid McCown $170 for the work; the parties disputed what that amount represented.
- McCown filed a workers’ compensation claim asserting he was an employee; the Hineses contended he was an independent contractor.

## Issues

1. Whether McCown proved an employer-employee relationship at the time of injury, or instead was an independent contractor under the Hayes multi-factor test.
2. Whether the Industrial Commission had jurisdiction to award workers’ compensation benefits given the worker’s status.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- The court held McCown was an independent contractor, not an employee, when injured.
- Because no employer-employee relationship existed, the Industrial Commission lacked jurisdiction and could not award benefits.

## Legal Principles

- The existence of an employer-employee relationship under the Workers’ Compensation Act is a jurisdictional fact; appellate courts independently review whether that relationship existed.
- Employee vs. independent contractor status is determined under the Hayes multi-factor test; no single factor is controlling, and all are weighed under the totality of circumstances.
- A worker’s specialized skill, control over the means and methods of work, autonomy over scheduling, project-specific engagement, and limited on-site supervision tend to support independent contractor status.
- Directions addressing the desired result or appearance, without control over technical methods, generally do not establish an employment relationship.

## Conclusion

Applying the Hayes factors, the court concluded the roofer exercised technical and scheduling control over a short, project-based job and was subject only to limited result-oriented instructions, making him an independent contractor and barring workers’ compensation coverage for lack of Commission jurisdiction.


McCown v. Hines, 549 S.E.2d 175 (N.C. 2001)