Full Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA J&S Technology Solutions, Inc., : CASES CONSOLIDATED Petitioner : : v. : No. 922 C.D. 2023 : Wilben Gonzalez, Dish Network, : LLC, Brickstreet Insurance Company, : and Uninsured Employer Guaranty : Fund (Workers’ Compensation : Appeal Board), : Respondents : Dish Network, LLC, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 928 C.D. 2023 : Argued: February 4, 2026 Wilben Gonzalez, J&S Technology : Solutions, Inc., Brickstreet Insurance : Company, and Uninsured Employer : Guaranty Fund (Workers’ Compensation : Appeal Board), : Respondents : BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge HONORABLE STELLA M. TSAI, Judge OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: August 4, 2026 In these consolidated appeals,1 J&S Technology Solutions, Inc. (J&S) and Dish Network, LLC (Dish Network), petition for review from the Order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), concluding that Wilben Gonzalez (Claimant) was an employee of J&S and that Dish Network was Claimant’s statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act).2 In doing so, the WCJ found Dish Network did not justifiably rely on documentation from Brickstreet Insurance Company (Brickstreet) that J&S carried workers’ compensation (WC) insurance. On appeal, J&S argues that the Board erred in concluding that Claimant established that J&S was his employer under the legal standards set forth in, among other cases, Universal Am-Can Ltd. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Minteer), 762 A.2d 328, 333 (Pa. 2000), and American Road Lines v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Royal), 39 A.3d 603, 611 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), where the evidence points to Claimant being an independent contractor. Dish Network asserts that it did all it could do to ascertain J&S’s insurance status, and the WCJ and Board erred in not finding that Brickstreet was estopped from denying coverage based on the representations of its authorized agent that J&S was insured by Brickstreet at the time of Claimant’s injury. 1 This Court consolidated the appeals of J&S Technology Solutions, Inc. (J&S) and Dish Network, LLC with J&S as the designated petitioner under Pa.R.A.P. 2136, by Order dated October 20, 2023. 2 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 461. It states, in relevant part: A contractor who subcontracts all or any part of a contract and his insurer shall be liable for the payment of compensation to the employes of the subcontractor unless the subcontractor primarily liable for the payment of such compensation has secured its payment as provided for in this act. Id. 2 I. BACKGROUND A. WCJ Proceedings On April 2, 2020, Claimant filed a claim petition naming J&S as his employer and alleging that on October 28, 2019, he sustained serious work-related injuries when he fell from a ladder while installing a satellite dish for a customer of Dish Network, who contracted with J&S to install its satellite dishes. Claimant sought temporary total disability benefits for his inability to work due to the work injuries. J&S, in turn, filed a petition to join Brickstreet Insurance Company (Brickstreet), its WC insurer, on June 8, 2020. Claimant thereafter filed a claim petition against the Uninsured Employer Guaranty Fund (Guaranty Fund), which petitioned to join Dish Network as another employer. The WCJ held multiple hearings,3 at which numerous witnesses testified and documentary evidence was introduced. Claimant testified at two hearings,4 describing, relevantly, his relationship with J&S and his work duties, as follows. J&S hired Claimant in July 2015 on a part-time basis to install satellite dishes and related equipment for different internet and phone companies, including HughesNet. Claimant signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (IC Agreement), which J&S introduced into evidence,5 when he was initially hired, but this agreement expired in June 2016. He was not presented with another IC Agreement to sign. Claimant later began working for J&S full-time, after which he could not refuse jobs, and was told by J&S’s owner that he could not work for anyone else. Claimant was never required to show proof he had WC 3 The WCJ held the hearings via video conference and telephone, consistent with the regulation at 34 Pa. Code § 131.54(a) (“At the discretion of the judge, the hearings may be conducted by telephone or other electronic means if the parties do not object.”) (emphasis added). None of the parties objected. 4 Claimant’s testimony is found at pages 11a to 110a of J&S’s Reproduced Record and pages 90 to 98 of Certified Record Item 32 and summarized in the WCJ’s Finding of Fact 3. 5 The IC Agreement is found at pages 332a to 340a of J&S’s Reproduced Record. 3 insurance and never did so while working for J&S. In July 2019, J&S told Claimant that HughesNet discontinued his tech number and that Claimant was being laid off. He was rehired in August 2019 to work for J&S as a technician installing and repairing Dish Network satellite dishes and associated equipment. Prior to being issued a tech number for Dish Network, Claimant underwent an extensive background check by J&S. Because more training was needed for Dish Network jobs, J&S’s route manager Shawn Waltz trained Claimant on how to install and repair Dish Network satellite dishes. Claimant’s work duties included loading equipment in vans, using a drill, climbing, walking, crawling, and carrying objects that weighed up to 50 pounds. Claimant used his own drill, hammer, screwdriver, wrench and sockets, and safety glasses, but could purchase them from J&S if needed. J&S provided the major equipment needed to install the satellite dishes, including cable, meters, concrete, and the dishes themselves. Claimant wore a uniform provided to him by J&S that had both J&S and Dish Network logos on it. J&S paid Claimant by the job and issued him a 1099. Claimant used his own van, paying for his own tolls, gas, maintenance, and insurance, but J&S paid him more per job to cover those costs. Claimant put a Dish Network magnet supplied by J&S on his van. Claimant purchased a commercial liability insurance policy while working for a previous installation company, which he maintained for several years including on October 28, 2019, the date he was injured. Claimant received his daily job and route assignments via a J&S and Dish Network encrypted application that tracked where Claimant was throughout the day. Claimant testified that if he finished a job early, a new assignment would be given through the application. He averaged about three to five jobs, and up to seven jobs, a day. Claimant did not and could not refuse any jobs, and he was prohibited by 4 J&S from working for any competing satellite installers and from using a helper or outsourcing an installation to another person. J&S had the right to fire Claimant if it did not like his work. Claimant had no discretion to direct the manner in which he installed satellites, and if there was a customer issue, it was between the customer, his supervisor, and Dish Network as to the placement of a satellite dish.6 (J&S’s Reproduced Record (J&S’s R.R.) at 28a-29a.) J&S’s president, John Lumbard, Jr., testified as follows.7 J&S is a retailer for Dish Network and HughesNet, and its regular business is the sale, installation, and repair of television and internet satellite dishes. J&S has installers who are employees and installers who work as independent contractors; both are expected to meet the same work standards. Claimant was an independent contractor, and the relationship between J&S and Claimant did not change after the IC Agreement expired even though that agreement did not contain a renewal clause. Claimant was allowed to work for other companies. While the IC Agreement required independent contractors to have WC insurance, J&S never required Claimant to provide proof of such insurance, but J&S did require a certificate of liability insurance.8 Mr. Lumbard could not lay off Claimant in July 2019 because Claimant was an independent contractor. When Claimant returned to J&S in August 2019, he performed only installations and repairs for Dish Network, he did not have a Dish Network tech 6 Claimant also presented the deposition testimony and related materials of his medical expert, Jed Shapiro, MD/DO, which is found at Certified Record Items 35 to 37 and summarized in Finding of Fact 13. J&S submitted two Independent Medical Examination reports, found at Certified Record Items 47 and 50 and summarized in Findings of Fact 14 and 15. Because the issues involved in this appeal are related solely to his employment status, we do not address Claimant’s diagnoses and medical treatment. 7 Mr. Lumbard’s testimony is found at pages 133a to 189a and pages 210a to 280a of J&S’s Reproduced Record and summarized in Finding of Fact 8. 8 J&S introduced several certificates of liability insurance naming Claimant as the insured. (J&S’s R.R. at 346a-50a.) 5 number when he returned, J&S trained Claimant on how to install Dish Network’s satellites, and Claimant could not bring a helper or an employee without approval. Mr. Lumbard disputed that Claimant received additional pay for using his own vehicle, but he acknowledged that Claimant wore a uniform with J&S and Dish Network logos on it. Claimant had the ability to reject jobs and had done so, but Mr. Lumbard acknowledged that if Claimant repeatedly accepted jobs in the morning and rejected jobs in the afternoon he would no longer be working for J&S. The satellites Claimant would install were provided by J&S on consignment, and Claimant had to purchase certain items, like cable and flex clips, from J&S or another Dish Network-approved vendor. Dish Network gives a four-hour window for installations to occur, and installers like Claimant had the discretion as to when in that window they will arrive and complete the work. Dish Network placed a value on each job and when the job is closed, Dish Network paid J&S, which then paid Claimant approximately 60% of the job’s value. As for J&S’s WC insurance coverage, Mr. Lumbard testified to the following. John Hiney is J&S’s insurance agent, and J&S had a WC insurance policy through Brickstreet for the period of September 25, 2018, to September 25, 2019. J&S was reminded by Dish Network prior to September 25, 2019, that J&S’s WC coverage would expire on that date and needed to be renewed. Mr. Lumbard requested Mr. Hiney to issue a certificate of insurance (Certificate) certifying WC coverage for the next policy year and, upon receipt, forwarded that certificate to Dish Network. J&S did not receive a bill or invoice for a premium from Brickstreet for the new policy period. 6 Shawn Waltz, a field operations manager for J&S, testified9 as follows. Claimant was a contractor for J&S, and he did not train Claimant but allowed Claimant to shadow him for a couple of days during which Claimant learned how to complete the tasks needed to install Dish Network equipment. J&S employees and contractors receive their jobs in the same way, but contractors can pick what jobs they will complete. Claimant could not hire a subcontractor or assign his jobs to someone else even if they were authorized by Dish Network to perform installations. Claimant was generally available every day unless he advised J&S he was not, and Claimant refused jobs on occasions, but he was still assigned work after doing so. However, if a contractor stops doing what they are told, that contractor would stop receiving work eventually. During the installation appointment windows, the contractor can show up and leave at any time, and Mr. Waltz indicated the contractor does not have to complete the work. Mr. Waltz is the primary contact if there are any disputes or issues with installation with a customer or landlord. The WCJ then found, based on the Installation Service Provider Agreement (ISP Agreement) introduced into evidence, that the relationship between J&S and Dish Network is governed by that agreement,10 in paragraph 12 of which J&S agreed to obtain and maintain WC coverage through the term of the ISP Agreement at J&S’s own cost and expense. (WCJ Finding of Fact (FOF) ¶ 4.) Paragraph nine of the ISP Agreement requires that J&S indemnify Dish Network if J&S fails to comply with any provision of that agreement. (Id. ¶ 5.) The ISP Agreement sets forth Dish Network’s performance standards for the installation of its products, and Dish Network can assign and pull work from J&S. (Id. ¶ 8c.) 9 Mr. Waltz’s testimony is found at pages 283a to 330a of J&S’s Reproduced Record and summarized in Finding of Fact 11. 10 The ISP Agreement is found at pages 17a to 62a of Dish Network’s Reproduced Record. 7 Mr. Hiney, a licensed insurance agent and employee of the Davis Insurance Agency, J&S’s insurance agency, testified as follows.11 As an independent agent, he can sell insurance coverage with any insurer he works with so long as the coverage meets the underwriting guidelines. Brickstreet is one of the insurance companies Mr. Hiney works with, and he has the authority to solicit and place policies for Brickstreet. Mr. Hiney’s role is to help policyholders choose the right coverage for the price and acts as the policyholder’s agent when pricing and placing coverage. Mr. Hiney placed a WC policy, policy #WCS3001328, through Brickstreet for J&S for the period of September 25, 2018, to September 25, 2019, which expired at 12:01 a.m. on September 25, 2019. Mr. Hiney worked with Mr. Lumbard in the summer and fall of 2019 to renew J&S’s WC policy with Brickstreet, and on September 24, 2019, he issued the Certificate certifying that a WC policy was issued to J&S for September 25, 2019, to September 25, 2020. Dish Network was listed as the certificate holder. But no renewal policy was in effect when Mr. Hiney issued the Certificate on September 24, 2019, at which time Brickstreet had quoted a renewal price but was waiting for J&S to pay the premium. Mr. Hiney was unaware if Brickstreet sent J&S an invoice but learned on October 25, 2019, that Brickstreet was not going to renew the policy because J&S had not paid the premium, which Mr. Lumbard confirmed. Thus, when Claimant was injured on October 28, 2019, J&S had no WC coverage in place. The Certificate Mr. Hiney issued stated: THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR 11 Mr. Hiney’s testimony is found at pages 63a to 95a of Dish Network’s Reproduced Record and summarized in Finding of Fact 6. 8 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY [POLICY # WCS3001328]. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. (FOF ¶ 7 (bold emphasis omitted).) Stephanie Trammel, a business operations analyst II for Dish Network’s third- party management department, testified12 about managing Dish Network’s subcontractors to ensure they have proper insurance, including WC insurance, as required by Paragraph 12 of the ISP Agreement. Ms. Trammel uses a computer system that sends requests to providers to update their insurance policies at various intervals, and she had no reason to believe J&S did not receive the repeated requests for information about its expiring WC policy. Mr. Lumbard emailed Ms. Trammel on September 10, 2019, indicating that J&S’s insurance agent knew that an updated certificate of insurance for its WC policy with new dates was needed, and J&S would forward the certificate when J&S received it. (FOF ¶ 10.) On September 25, 2019, Dish Network advised J&S that it was at risk of being deactivated as a provider if it did not provide a certificate of insurance that day. J&S provided the Certificate issued by Mr. Hiney that certified WC coverage from September 25, 2019, to September 25, 2020. Ms. Trammel reviewed the Certificate, found it to be in good order, and had no reason not to believe the Certificate. Due to the submission of the certificate, J&S remained an active installer. Neither Mr. Hiney nor Brickstreet notified Ms. Trammel or Dish Network that J&S’s WC coverage had been cancelled, denied, or no longer existed after September 25, 2019, or that the certificate had been issued in error. 12 Ms. Trammel’s testimony is found at pages 96a to 122a of Dish Network’s Reproduced Record and summarized in Finding of Fact 9. 9 Finally, Kelly Harmon, an assistant vice president of product management with Brickstreet, testified.13 She is the liaison between Brickstreet’s underwriting and Information Technology departments and ensures that Brickstreet’s policy administration system that generates WC policies is synced with business needs. Mr. Hiney, an authorized agent for Brickstreet, communicated with Brickstreet using that electronic system in 2018 through 2020. J&S’s WC policy was a “no touch policy,” meaning that no underwriter needed to review the application and, so long as an authorized agent submitted the application through the electronic system and certain criteria were met, a quote would be immediately sent to the agent, who could accept the quote on behalf of the client. An email was sent to Mr. Hiney on July 21, 2019, indicating that a renewal quote was available to be viewed and acted upon. The next day, a quote proposal to activate J&S’s renewal policy for the next year was sent to Mr. Hiney, and, although the notice contained J&S’s address, Ms. Harmon was unaware if it was separately mailed to J&S. That quote remained open for 30 days after the expiration of the prior policy, or until October 25, 2019. If the quote was accepted after that date, Brickstreet required documentation that the insured did not have any accidents during the uninsured time. Brickstreet did not receive any acceptance of its renewal quote during the 30-day period. Brickstreet emailed Mr. Hiney on October 26, 2019, indicating that the renewal quote had not been accepted and updated J&S’s status that renewal coverage had been rejected. J&S’s prior WC policy expired; it was not cancelled. Upon his review, the WCJ found the testimony of Claimant, Mr. Hiney, and Ms. Harmon credible based on their demeanor. (FOF ¶¶ 16-17, 21.) The WCJ found Ms. Trammel’s testimony credible except to the extent she stated she inspected the 13 Ms. Harmon’s testimony is found at pages 42 to 66 of Certified Record Item 32 Reproduced Record and summarized in Finding of Fact 12. 10 Certificate, found it was in good order, and had no reason to disbelieve or reject the Certificate based on her demeanor and the disclaimer language in the Certificate. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 19.) The WCJ accepted the following testimony of Mr. Lumbard as credible: (3) there was no renewal clause in the IC Agreement and [Mr. Lumbard] never had Claimant sign another IC Agreement; (4) [from] August 2019[,] to October 28, 2019[,] Claimant was only doing Dish Network work[,] and Claimant did not have a Dish Network tech number when he returned in August 2019 to do such work; (5) Claimant wore a uniform with the Dish Network and J&S [] logos at customers’ premises; (6) if Claimant repeatedly accepted jobs in the morning and declined to do the jobs in the afternoon, he would not be working for J&S [] much longer; (7) [Mr. Lumbard] cannot point to an installation or cable job that Claimant accepted from an entity other than J&S [] between 2016 and October 28, 2019; (8) Claimant could not bring a helper or another employee onto a Dish Network job without getting prior approval; (9) [J&S’s] insurance agent was [Mr.] Hiney; (10) the initial [WC] policy with Brickstreet ran from September 25, 2018[,] to September 25, 2019; (11) in the period leading up to September 25, 2019, [Mr. Lumbard] was notified by Dish Network that the [WC] policy was set to expire on September 25, 2019; (12) [Mr. Lumbard] requested that Mr. Hiney provide him with a certificate of insurance certifying to [WC] coverage for the policy year September 25, 2019[,] to September 25, 2020; and (13) [Mr. Lumbard] forwarded the [C]ertificate . . . on to Dish Network. 11 (FOF ¶ 18.) Beyond this, “Mr. Lumbard’s testimony [was] explicitly rejected” based on Mr. Lumbard’s demeanor. (Id. (emphasis omitted).) The WCJ similarly “explicitly rejected” Mr. Waltz’s testimony, based on his demeanor, except as to his testimony that: (2) Claimant acquired his knowledge about Dish Network processes through [Mr. Waltz]; (3) [Mr. Waltz] is the primary contact when there is a dispute with a customer or landlord and a lot of times his phone number was provided when there was such a dispute; (4) if a “contractor” stops doing what he tells them to do, the “contractor” would eventually stop receiving work; and (5) Claimant had no discretion to hire a subcontractor or assign his Dish Network jobs to someone else – even if that person was Dish Network- authorized. (FOF ¶ 20 (emphasis omitted).) Based on the above determinations, the WCJ found that Claimant was an employee of J&S on October 28, 2019, the day he sustained disabling, work-related injuries from which he continued to suffer. (Id. ¶¶ 25-26; Conclusion of Law (COL) ¶ 2.) The WCJ also found that, on October 28, 2019, J&S did not have a WC policy in place that would cover Claimant’s injury due to J&S’s failure to pay the renewal premium for the Brickstreet policy, and Dish Network was a statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Act. (FOF ¶¶ 9, 27-28; COL ¶¶ 3, 4a.) The WCJ further found that Mr. Hiney was acting on J&S’s behest, not Brickstreet’s, when he issued the Certificate on September 24, 2019. (FOF ¶¶ 10, 18, 29.) Finally, the WCJ found “that Dish Network did not justifiably rely on the [C]ertificate . . . when it permitted J&S [] to remain an active installation for Dish Network.” (Id. ¶ 30.) For these 12 reasons, the WCJ granted Claimant’s Claim Petition and the Guaranty Fund Claim Petition, granted the Guaranty Fund’s Petition to Join Dish Network, and denied J&S’s Petition to Join Brickstreet as neither J&S nor Dish Network established that Brickstreet was estopped from denying coverage. (COL ¶¶ 2-6.) The WCJ ordered J&S and Dish Network to pay Claimant’s indemnity and medical benefits, with the Guaranty Fund being secondarily liable should either J&S or Dish Network default. B. Board Appeals Both J&S and Dish Network appealed the WCJ’s Order to the Board. The Board affirmed the WCJ’s determination that Claimant was an employee of J&S when he was injured. The Board reviewed J&S’s arguments that Claimant was not an employee, including Mr. Lumbard’s testimony that although the IC Agreement expired, that agreement continued to define the work relationship, and found it unpersuasive, noting that J&S had both employees and independent contractors performing installations. (Board Opinion (Op.) at 12-13.) Looking at the credited testimony, the Board concluded that J&S “exercised significant control over the work to be done” by Claimant. (Id. at 13.) While the Board observed that “some indicia of control,” such as requiring its logo on Claimant’s truck and clothing and the use of approved parts, “can be attributed to Dish Network’s requirements,” the Board pointed to other factors, including that: Claimant had not been certified to install Dish Network and learned how to do so from Mr. Waltz; Claimant could not work for any other company, a change from his prior relationship with J&S; and J&S would stop assigning jobs if an installer’s performance was unsatisfactory. (Id.) The Board concluded that, in any case, Claimant “did not operate his own business,” citing that he had previously worked as an installer for another company before J&S. (Id.) 13 The Board also affirmed the WCJ’s conclusions that Dish Network was a statutory employer of Claimant under Section 302(a) of the Act and Brickstreet was not estopped from denying coverage. The Board “discern[ed] no difference between” Dish Network’s argument that it was error to find that Dish Network did not justifiably rely on the Certificate issued “and its contention that it cannot be a statutory employer because it complied with the requirements of [S]ection 302(d) and (i).” (Id. at 24.) The Board rejected these arguments, holding that Dish Network could not rely on the Certificate due to its boilerplate disclaimer language. (Id.) Both J&S and Dish Network petition for review of the Board’s Order. 14 The Court addresses J&S’s appeal first because if we conclude J&S was not Claimant’s employer, Claimant’s injury would not be covered by the Act, and, in turn, Dish Network could not be found liable for coverage of that injury. II. J&S’S APPEAL A. Parties’ Arguments J&S asserts one issue in its appeal, contending the Board erred in affirming the WCJ’s determination that Claimant, when he was injured, was an employee of J&S under Universal Am-Can and American Road Lines.15 While acknowledging that the 2015 IC Agreement had a term of one year and did not renew, J&S argues that the evidence, particularly Mr. Lumbard’s and Mr. Waltz’s testimony, 14 In reviewing the Board’s adjudication, this Court considers whether constitutional rights were violated, errors of law were committed, or necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. Stepp v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (FairPoint Commc’ns, Inc.), 99 A.3d 598, 601 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). 15 J&S relies on Travis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bob Wagner Mill Carpet, Inc.) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1548 C.D. 2001, filed November 8, 2001), in support of its arguments. However, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 126(b), Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), and Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a), permit the citation to unreported opinions issued after January 15, 2008, for persuasive purposes. Travis falls outside this rule having been issued in 2001. 14 established that the relationship continued on the same terms, up to the date of Claimant’s injury, including the manner of assignments in two-hour windows. According to J&S, the evidence showed that Claimant decided whether to accept or reject installation orders; provided his own vehicle; and supplied his own tools, including clips and cables. It maintains that Claimant was financially responsible for antennas and receivers to be installed if they were not returned or used, was responsible for the gas and tolls he incurred, was paid by the installation, not the hours worked, and was required to purchase and provide proof of a commercial liability insurance, which reflects that Claimant operated his own business. J&S further points out that Claimant received a Form 1099, requiring him to pay his own taxes, was not prevented from performing services for other installation service companies, and was allowed to refuse orders, which he did when assignments went outside his area. J&S questions the Board’s reliance on the fact that it has both employees and independent contractors performing the same duties as a reason to conclude Claimant is an employee. A reasonable view of all these facts, which J&S contends, are basically undisputed, establishes that Claimant controlled the decision of whether to work and the manner in which he did the installation work. As such, Claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee.16 Claimant argues a reasonable view of the credited evidence supports the conclusion that he was an employee of J&S when he was injured and concluding otherwise would require the Court to be “solicitous to find a contractorship rather than employment.” (Claimant’s Brief (Br.) at 19-20 (quoting Southland Cable Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Emmett), 598 A.2d 329, 331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)).) 16 Brickstreet and Dish Network provided written and/or oral arguments that were consistent with J&S’s arguments as to why Claimant was an independent contractor, not an employee of J&S. 15 Claimant maintains that the credited evidence establishes that Dish Network exercised control over him and his work and that numerous factors of the common law test for employment are met. The existence of the expired IC Agreement and the facts that he was paid by the job and received a Form 1099 are not dispositive, as the Court must determine this issue based on the facts of the relationship itself, not just the documents. At oral argument, Claimant asserted that the commercial liability insurance policy is not dispositive, as the evidence showed that Claimant bought that insurance at times, but it was not clear whether it was purchased as a requirement of J&S or because Claimant thought it would be good to have. (J&S’s R.R. at 84a-85a.) According to Claimant, he could not work as a Dish Network installer without J&S, which supplied the customers and the satellite dishes to be installed, as he is unlike a house painter, who can go door to door to solicit business, and, therefore, he was not engaged in a distinct occupation or business. J&S is in the regular business of installing satellites, and it uses both employees and independent contractors, who have the same skill set, to perform the same duties. While Claimant provided some of his own hand tools, he argues it was J&S that provided the essential tools and equipment necessary to complete the satellite installations. Ultimately, Claimant contends, J&S “controlled almost every aspect of Claimant’s workday, from when he reported, [to] which customers he dealt with,” and, therefore, J&S was his employer. (Claimant’s Br. at 18.) Finally, Claimant asserts the determination that he was J&S’s employee is consistent with the Commonwealth’s policies against the misclassification of employees, as reflected in the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act, 43 Pa.C.S. §§ 933.1-933.17 (Misclassification Act). The Misclassification Act defines “independent contractor” for purposes of WC, unemployment compensation (UC), 16 and worker classification, and, while not implicated here, shows a legislative intent to discourage misclassifying employees to avoid paying, inter alia, WC benefits. Claimant notes that were it to apply, none of the requirements for being an independent contractor are met here,17 which is indicative of the relationship between him and J&S. 17 Section 3 of the Misclassification Act provides: (a) GENERAL RULE.--For purposes of [WC], [UC] and improper classification of employees provided herein, an individual who performs services in the construction industry for remuneration is an independent contractor only if: (1) The individual has a written contract to perform such services. (2) The individual is free from control or direction over performance of such services both under the contract of service and in fact. (3) As to such services, the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. (b) CRITERIA.--An individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business with respect to services the individual performs in the commercial or residential building construction industry only if: (1) The individual possesses the essential tools, equipment and other assets necessary to perform the services independent of the person for whom the services are performed. (2) The individual’s arrangement with the person for whom the services are performed is such that the individual shall realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of performing the services. (3) The individual performs the services through a business in which the individual has a proprietary interest. (4) The individual maintains a business location that is separate from the location of the person for whom the services are being performed. (5) The individual: (i) previously performed the same or similar services for another person in accordance with paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) and while free from (Footnote continued on next page…) 17 B. Discussion Since the earliest years of the WC movement, our Supreme Court has recognized the distinction, for compensation purposes, between independent contractors and employees. Gailey v. State Workmen’s Ins. Fund, 133 A. 498, 499 (Pa. 1926). The high court has long and consistently directed that “neither the compensation authorities nor the courts should be solicitous to put claimants in th[e] position [of independent contractor] when a reasonable view of the [credited] evidence warrants a finding that the injured person was an employee.” Id.; see, e.g., Universal Am-Can, 762 A.2d at 331; Thomas v. Bache, 40 A.2d 495, 497 (Pa. 1945). This Court has followed suit, recognizing the remedial nature of the Act. See, e.g., IDI Logistics, Inc. v. Clayton (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 284 A.3d 248, 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022); Berkebile Towing & Recovery v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Harr), 254 A.3d 783, 790 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). Under this standard, a court’s “sole concern is to see that [legally] competent proofs are present which support the material points of the claimant’s case” and so long as “the record [] contain[s] evidence on these essential points, and, be the proofs meager or plentiful, weak or strong,” the WCJ’s “findings that . . . [a claimant] was not acting as an independent contractor[] will not be disturbed.” Gailey, 133 A. at 500-01. The Supreme Court direction or control over performance of the services, both under the contract of service and in fact; or (ii) holds himself out to other persons as available and able, and in fact is available and able, to perform the same or similar services in accordance with paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) while free from direction or control over performance of the services. (6) The individual maintains liability insurance during the term of this contract of at least $50,000. 43 P.S. § 933.3. 18 later added that, for a claimant to establish an employment relationship, the “inferences favoring the claim [of employment] need make only slightly stronger appeal to reason than those opposed.” Universal Am-Can, 762 A.2d at 330 (emphasis added). Claimants seeking WC benefits must establish that they sustained an injury in the course of their employment and that the injury resulted in a loss of earning power. “It is a claimant’s burden to establish an employer/employee relationship in order to receive benefits.” Id. The Act defines “employe” as one who is the “servant” of the employer, and it defines “employer” as the “master.” Sections 103 and 104 of the Act, 77 P.S. §§ 21, 22. The nature of a working relationship “is a question of law based on the facts presented in each case.” Am. Road Lines, 39 A.3d at 610. The Supreme Court has explained the common law factors relevant to the determination of whether a claimant works as an employee or as an independent contractor, as follows: While no hard and fast rule exists to determine whether a particular relationship is that of employer-employee or owner-independent contractor, certain guidelines have been established and certain factors are required to be taken into consideration: “Control of manner work is to be done; responsibility for result only; terms of agreement between the parties; the nature of the work or occupation; skill required for performance; whether one is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; which party supplied the tools; whether payment is by the time or by the job; whether work is part of the regular business of the employer, and also the right to terminate the employment at any time.” Stepp v. Renn, [] 135 A.2d 794[, 796] ([Pa. Super.] 1957). [] Universal Am-Can, 762 A.2d at 333 (citing Hammermill Paper Co. v. Rust Eng’g Co., 243 A.2d 389, 392 (Pa. 1968)) (emphasis added). The high court further 19 explained that whether “some or all of these factors exist in any given situation is not controlling.” Id. The common law test provides that “control over the work to be completed and the manner in which it is to be performed are the primary factors in determining employee status.” Id. Other relevant factors “include the putative employer’s withholding of wages for income taxes, acquisition of (or failure to acquire) [WC] insurance, and the existence of a signed contractor agreement.” IDI Logistics, 284 A.3d at 255. This last factor must be viewed with “caution . . . in light of the potential for employers to use them as a means of avoiding legitimate [WC] liability.” Id.18 Because every case is fact specific, it is unnecessary that each of these factors be present to make the determination of the nature of the employment relationship. J. Miller Co. v. Mixter, 277 A.2d 867, 869 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1971). We must also remain cognizant that the WCJ is the ultimate fact finder in[WC] cases and is entitled to weigh the evidence and assess credibility of witnesses. Montano v. Advance Stores Co., Inc. (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 278 A.3d 969,