Legal Opinion
Universal Am-Can, Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided November 27, 2000PublishedCited by 114 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZAPPALA, Justice.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether Claimant Clarence O. Minteer was an employee,' or an independent contractor, of Appellant Universal Am-Can, Ltd. for the purposes of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Minteer was an independent contractor. Thus, we reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court.
*484Minteer is an owner-operator of a tractor-trailer unit. Pursuant to an operating agreement, Minteer’s tractor-trailer was under lease to Universal Am-Can. On April 16,1993, Minteer fell from his truck while attempting…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Peak v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Phillips v. A-Best Products Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Hader v. Coplay Cement Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Hammermill Paper Co. v. Rust Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by114 opinions
- Bowling v. Office of Open RecordsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Thompson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Sell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Danielle Viktor, Ltd. v. Department of Labor & IndustrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.