## Facts

- Benjamin Muskovitz Plumbing & Heating operated a plumbing and heating installation/repair business and regularly employed 6 to 12 plumbers and steamfitters.
- When a job required substantial digging, Muskovitz either added workers to payroll or “sublet” the digging to save money and better serve customers.
- A property owner hired Muskovitz to clear a blocked sewer for $75; Muskovitz arranged for Gerardo Tata to perform the work for $50, but the sewer could not be cleared.
- Muskovitz then contracted with the owner to install a new sewer on a time-and-materials basis.
- Muskovitz hired Tata to dig a trench approximately 10 feet deep and 200 feet long from the building to a manhole.
- Tata was paid hourly: $6 per hour for himself and $3.50 per hour for his helper; there was no written contract.
- Muskovitz supplied the sewer materials and obtained required permits; Tata hired a power shovel and paid for the shovel and its operator.
- Tata was told where to dig; Muskovitz did not supervise the details of digging.
- A trench cave-in buried and killed Tata.
- Tata’s widow sought workers’ compensation benefits, and the compensation referee awarded benefits; the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board affirmed and adopted the referee’s findings.

## Issues

1. Whether competent evidence supported the Appeal Board’s determination that Tata was an employee, rather than an independent contractor, at the time of his death.
2. Whether, on the established facts, the worker’s status under Michigan’s workers’ compensation law should be determined by the overall economic relationship rather than a narrow focus on day-to-day control.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the compensation award.
- The Court adopted the referee’s factual findings as accepted by the Appeal Board, emphasizing that such findings are conclusive if supported by competent evidence.
- The Court held that the Board could reasonably classify Tata as an employee on the facts found, notwithstanding that he hired helpers and rented equipment and was not supervised in the details of digging.

## Legal Principles

- In workers’ compensation review, the Appeal Board’s factual findings are conclusive if supported by competent evidence; appellate review does not reweigh evidence.
- Employee-versus-independent-contractor status turns on the totality of the relationship, including economic realities, not solely on the employer’s immediate control over work details.
- Indicators supporting employee status include hourly wage payment, the employer’s procurement of the job and dealings with the customer, furnishing of materials, securing permits, and integration of the work into the employer’s regular business.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld workers’ compensation benefits for Tata’s widow because competent evidence supported the Appeal Board’s finding that Tata’s trench work was part of Muskovitz’s regular plumbing business and, viewed in economic terms and the overall arrangement, Tata was an employee rather than an independent contractor.


Tata v. Benjamin Muskovitz Plumbing & Heating, 354 Mich. 695, 94 N.W.2d 71 (1959)