Wild v. Fregein Construction’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 district · 12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Buckman v. Montana Deaconess Hospital · Sharp v. Hoerner Waldorf Corp. · Gaub v. Milbank Insurance · Northwest Pub. v. DEPT. OF LABOR & IND. · Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation v. State Compensation Insurance Fund
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Act was designed to provide benefits to injured workers. The Act is worthless if employers are provided a means of opting out of the Act by what amounts to be a transparent sham. For an employer to give the individual being hired the choice of being an employee or an IC for an increase in pay simply encourages employers to avoid their obligations under the Act and precipitates exactly the sort of problems that § 39-71-409, MCA (prohibiting workers from waiving their rights under the Act) was designed to avoid. Furthermore, interpreting the Act to uphold this practice puts to a severe economic and competitive disadvantage those employers who, in compliance with the Act, assume their legitimate obligations under the law by hiring and paying workers according to whether they are in fact (and not simply in name) ICs or employees. And finally, this practice allows employers to prey on blue collar laborers, few of whom are foresighted enough (or in some cases financiallyable) to reject the offer of a few extra dollars per hour in order to obtain the protections of the Act that may, one day, save them and their families from financial ruin.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) The application must be made in accordance with the rules adopted by the department.... (c) When an application is approved by the department, it is conclusive as to the status of an independent contractor and precludes the applicant from obtaining benefits under this chapter. (d) The exemption, if approved, remains in effect for 3 years following the date of the department's approval. To maintain the independent contractor status, an independent contractor shall every 3 years submit a renewal application.... (e) A person who makes a false statement or misrepresentation concerning that person's status as an exempt independent contractor is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000. The department may impose the penalty for each false statement or misrepresentation.....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When an employer hires a worker, it is the employer that dictates whether the worker will be paid by the hour, how the worker will be controlled, whose tools are going to be used and whether the worker can be fired. Thus, the employer should be required to determine whether the person is an IC based on what the employer knows and what the parties agree to during the working relationship. If the facts change during the course of employment, then the employer should be required to reassess the situation. To do otherwise would lead to an absurd result and we have repeatedly stated that statutory construction should not lead to absurd results if a reasonable construction will avoid it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.