The petitioner appeals the compensation judge’s determination that the decedent was an independent contractor and not an employee of Stephen Eliason, individually or doing business as Blitz Auto Sales on February 17, 2013.  We affirm.

In August of 2012, Dennis Johnson began working with Stephen Eliason in Eliason’s auto sales business, Blitz Auto Sales (hereinafter Eliason).  Eliason would purchase vehicles at auctions and Johnson would drive the vehicles from the auctions, sometimes using a flatbed truck owned by Eliason, to Eliason’s business location.  Johnson would make mechanical repairs on the vehicles at Blitz Auto Sales, in Eliason’s yard, or at his own home.  Johnson worked about three days a week, five to eight hours per day, and kept track of his hours as credit at a rate of $15.00 per hour in a personal log book.  Johnson would use his accumulated credit to purchase vehicles from Eliason.  Eliason would provide parts for the repair work.  No taxes were withheld and Eliason was not insured for workers’ compensation liability.  Johnson also worked as a contractor for other people.  He also occasionally drove to northwestern Minnesota to assist his aunt with maintenance on her house.  On February 17, 2013, Johnson was driving a vehicle owned by Eliason as he returned from such a trip to assist his aunt.  On the way, Johnson lost control of the vehicle while attempting to pass a semi-trailer on snow-covered roads and was killed in a motor vehicle accident on Interstate 29 near Hillsboro, North Dakota.

Johnson’s spouse, Linda Johnson (petitioner), filed a claim petition for dependency benefits against Eliason, doing business as Blitz Auto Sales, alleging that Johnson was Eliason’s employee and that at the time of the accident and death he was driving Eliason’s vehicle to determine its gas mileage for Eliason before it was resold.  Eliason was uninsured for workers’ compensation liability and did not file an answer to the claim petition.  The Special Compensation Fund (hereinafter SCF) interposed an answer denying liability, specifically denying that the claimed injury arose out of and in the course of employment and stating that SCF was without sufficient information that the decedent was in the employ of the named employer as a mechanic.  As an alternative pleading, the SCF also filed a petition for reimbursement for potential payments against Eliason, individually or doing business as Blitz Auto Sales.  Eliason did not file an answer to the petition for reimbursement.  SCF also moved that the claim petition and the petition for reimbursement be consolidated for hearing, which was granted by the compensation judge.  A hearing was held on January 16, 2015.

At the hearing, the SCF argued that Johnson was not an employee, but was an independent contractor with Eliason.  Eliason testified at the hearing, giving inconsistent and, at times, contradictory testimony regarding the business relationship between himself and Johnson.  Eliason also gave several various reasons why Johnson was driving Eliason’s vehicle on his trip, including that Johnson was test-driving the vehicle for possible purchase, that Johnson needed a vehicle with a trailer hitch, and that Johnson’s vehicles were not reliable.  The petitioner also claimed that Johnson sometimes sold vehicles for Blitz Auto Sales and that Johnson had occasionally been paid in cash.  Eliason initially denied any cash payments, but cash payments of $200.00 and $300.00 were recorded in Johnson’s personal log book of time worked.  Johnson generally accumulated credit on the basis of $15.00 per hour for transporting vehicles and performing mechanical work on cars owned by Eliason.  Johnson could purchase cars with cash or accumulate credit which he used to purchase vehicles from Eliason.  No tax documentation from either party was submitted into the record to establish paid wages to Johnson such as withholding taxes and social security contributions.

The compensation judge concluded that the nature of the parties’ relationship was not an employee/employer relationship that was covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act.  The judge determined that Johnson was an independent contractor pursuant to Minn. R. ch. 5224 and denied all claims.  The judge did not address the issue of whether the accident and Johnson’s death arose out of and in the course of employment.  The petitions for dependency benefits and for reimbursement were both dismissed.  The petitioner appeals.  The question for the compensation judge at hearing, and for this court to review on appeal, was whether Dennis Johnson was an independent contractor or an employee of Eliason under the Workers’ Compensation Act on February 17, 2013.

The determination of an employment relationship is a mixed question of fact and law where the issues of law are reviewed de novo,^[1] but the compensation judge’s factual findings, including his weighing of the evidence as it relates to the specific criteria in Minn. R. ch. 5224, are reviewed based on a substantial evidence standard.^[2]  While “the determination of employment status is, ultimately, a legal one,”^[3] “the compensation judge's determination must be given the deference reserved for factfinders under this court's standard of review.”^[4]

The Workers’ Compensation Act provides that an employer is liable to pay compensation for a work-related injury or death of an employee.^[5]  An employee is defined as “any person who performs services for another for hire.”^[6]  However, any person who performs services for another for hire as an independent contractor is excluded from coverage under Minnesota’s workers’ compensation law.^[7]  An independent contractor is defined under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 1(12), by “rules adopted by the commissioner pursuant to section 176.83.”  The rules listing the criteria for distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor for purposes of workers’ compensation coverage are found in Minn. R. ch. 5224.  The purpose of this chapter “is to establish standards for distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor for purposes of workers' compensation coverage . . . .”^[8]  Ultimately, the petitioner has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to workers’ compensation   benefits.^[9]

Where, as in this case, the work performed by Johnson is not one of the specific occupations or businesses for which "safe harbor" criteria are listed, Johnson’s employment status is evaluated under the general criteria for nonspecified occupations listed in Minn. R. 5224.0330 and 5224.0340 to determine his employment status.  As stated in Minn. R. 5224.0330, subp. 1, the most important factor in determining independent contractor or employee status is the degree of control exerted by the purported employer over the manner and method of performing the contracted work.  The more control there is, the more likely the person is an employee and not an independent contractor.  The question of control over an employee or independent contractor refers to the right to control rather than its exercise.  Generally, the “ ‘nature of the relationship is to be ascertained, not from the label given to it by the parties themselves,  but from  the  consequences which the law  attached to their   arrangements and to their  conduct.’ ”^[10]  It is well established that control of the manner and method of performance is the fundamental element in determining whether an individual is an independent contractor or whether there is an employee/employer relationship between the parties.^[11]

The criteria to determine the degree and extent of control over method and manner of performance or executing services are listed in Minn. R. 5224.0330, subps. 2‑14:

Using Minn. R. 5224.0330, the compensation judge considered and analyzed the extent of control which Eliason exercised over the details of the work in the business arrangement between Eliason and Johnson.  Eliason testified that Johnson was not allowed to hire assistants.^[12]  As far as compliance with instructions, Eliason would pick out the vehicles at the auction and direct Johnson to bring them to the sales lot by driving them or using a flatbed truck.  Eliason would point out which vehicles he thought needed repairs.  Johnson would determine what repairs were necessary and do the mechanical work.  Eliason did not instruct Johnson on where, when, or how to repair the vehicles.^[13]  There was no evidence of oral or written reports^[14] other than a personal log of the hours Johnson spent working at the auctions and repairing the vehicles.  As the compensation judge noted, Eliason did not maintain any records regarding the hours Johnson worked.  Johnson did repair work at his home, at the sales lot, and in Eliason’s yard,^[15] performing the work personally.^[16]  Johnson worked with Eliason beginning in August 2012 until his death in February 2013.^[17]  Johnson did not have set hours or days that he worked^[18] and worked part time, about three days per week, five to eight hours per day.^[19]  No training was given.^[20]  Johnson also worked as a contractor, but there was no evidence in the record that he worked for others as a mechanic.^[21]  Johnson provided his own tools.^[22]  Eliason paid for gas and parts and sometimes reimbursed Johnson for parts.  There is no evidence of other business expense reimbursement beyond reimbursement for parts.^[23]  Johnson had a Class C license which allowed him to drive the flatbed truck.  There is no evidence that Eliason paid for this license.^[24]  The compensation judge considered and analyzed these facts and concluded that Eliason did not have supervision and control over the actual work Johnson performed since Johnson kept his own records, set his own schedule, worked at home with his own tools, and was free to work for others.

Other factors to be considered in determining employment status under Minn. R. 5224.0340 are:

The compensation judge considered multiple factors and determined that the totality of the circumstances supported the conclusion that Johnson was an independent contractor.  The judge specifically listed the factors of control, compensation, profit/loss realization, training, substantial investment, and responsibility in finding independent contractor status.  While there is evidence in the record which supports the petitioner’s position, substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s determination that Johnson was an independent contractor on February 17, 2013.  We affirm the compensation judge on this issue.

The petitioner argues that the compensation judge erred by relying on any of Eliason’s testimony because of the documented impeachment of his testimony regarding cash payments to Johnson and the unproven reasons why Johnson was using Eliason’s vehicle at the time of the accident.  Assessment of a witness’s credibility is uniquely within the province of the compensation judge.^[33]  Upon review, this court must give due weight to the compensation judge’s opportunity to observe the witness and judge his credibility.^[34]  Reconciling inconsistencies and contradictions of a witness’s testimony is reserved for the finder of fact.^[35]  As a general rule, it is not the role of this court to evaluate the credibility and probative value of witness testimony and choose different inferences from the evidence than the compensation judge.^[36]  The compensation judge is generally entitled to accept all or any part of a witness’s testimony and any potential inconsistencies in the testimony do not provide a basis to reverse the judge’s findings.^[37]

This court has clarified that in a case “with facts which might fit a particular work situation into more than one of the criteria, or where a criterion is partially met, the compensation judge must weigh those facts and the credibility of the witnesses to make the final determination.  In such a case, the compensation judge's determination must be given the deference reserved for factfinders under this court's standard of review.”^[38]  Where evidence conflicts or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings are to be affirmed.^[39]  Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s findings of fact and supports his determination that Johnson was an independent contractor on the date of death.  Accordingly, we affirm.