How to combat an Independent Contractor Defense to a Workers’ Compensation claim with the help of a Knoxville workers’ compensation attorney:
In the case of Julia Havey v. SageHome, LLC, d/b/a New Bath Today (Docket No. 2024-60-3630), the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed and remanded a trial court’s interlocutory order requiring the employer, SageHome, LLC (“NBT”), to provide a panel of orthopedic physicians to the claimant, Julia Havey. The central issue was whether Havey was an employee eligible for workers’ compensation benefits or an independent contractor excluded from coverage.
Julia Havey sustained injuries on March 6, 2024, after falling on a sidewalk while conducting a sales visit for NBT. She reported injuries to her shoulder, hip, back, and ankle and later obtained an MRI showing shoulder damage. NBT denied medical care, stating that Havey was an independent contractor based on a May 2023 “Sales Representative Agreement,” which described her as a “direct seller” not entitled to employee benefits. In response, Havey filed for a hearing seeking benefits.
At the expedited hearing, Havey testified she had joined NBT expecting flexibility and autonomy as a 1099 contractor. However, her testimony described a working relationship indicative of employee status. She was required to attend mandatory training, use NBT’s proprietary application, follow a sales script, attend weekly meetings, and remain available during regular business hours.
Appointments were scheduled by NBT, and her supervisors, including Matthew Melton, monitored her performance. She also testified to being reprimanded when requesting time off, despite technically having scheduling flexibility.
Although the contract permitted her to hire subcontractors and work for other companies, Havey testified—without rebuttal—that NBT’s proprietary systems and materials made that impractical. She used her own car and phone but was given marketing materials and business cards from NBT.
She also paid out-of-pocket for access to the company’s app and was not reimbursed for mileage. Her pay was based on commissions, but she disputed receiving the full amount she was promised.
NBT submitted no live testimony, relying solely on contractual language and an affidavit from a company executive. The trial court found Havey’s testimony credible and concluded she was likely to prevail at trial in proving she was an employee. The court ordered NBT to provide a panel of orthopedic specialists but denied temporary disability benefits, as there was no evidence of a work restriction due to the injury.
The Appeals Board upheld the trial court’s findings using the seven-factor test under Tennessee law to determine employment status: right to control work, right of termination, method of payment, ability to hire helpers, provision of tools, scheduling freedom, and ability to work elsewhere. The court found most of these factors either favored employee status or were neutral.
Most notably, it emphasized NBT’s control over Havey’s daily schedule, sales methods, and availability requirements. Although the contract labeled her an independent contractor, courts are not bound by contractual labels but must evaluate the actual nature of the working relationship.
In conclusion, the Appeals Board agreed that the preponderance of the evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that Havey was likely to prove she was an employee at the time of her injury. The order requiring NBT to provide medical care was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
For help with a workers’ compensation claim in Tennessee, contact a Knoxville workers’ compensation lawyer at The Lawyers of Brown & Roberto.