Williams v. Hislip

Appellant brought this action against appellee for compensation under the Indiana Workmen’s Compensation Act. Appellee filed an answer in four paragraphs; the first denied appellant’s allegations ; the second averred appellant was a casual laborer; the third that he was a farm or agricultural employee; and the fourth, that he was an independent contractor.

Following an award in favor of appellant by the hearing member, appellee applied for a review by the Full Board.

After reviewing the evidence and hearing argument, the Full Board found that appellant, while performing services for appellee as…