WPC # VUDa % 0(w@4 ' 6 >    0JV 0T 0^ 0hR 0r 0|, 0 0. 1u 0d3B)DC B AM U *m D3v~vC 0@ AOV 0Dk D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 8hZ,Century-WP RegularX($ ABPCPDPEPFVGHӀTUz!x% 3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d-$C << G<  9p`(Arial !  ''   YYY FILED'X November1,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.'AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#  ''   YYY FILED'X November1,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.'AppellateCourtClerk %%%%'dxdPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .      \RA'\ћ@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL@ ATJACKSON@ (May17,1996Session)HAZELMANESSFLATT,   ) CHESTERCHANCERY      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,   ) Hon.JoeC.Morris,      ) Chancellorv.      )      ) No.02S019601CH00007ٜL&($;+'h|$`  `LߛTHEINSURANCEMART,INC.,  )      ) Defendant/Appellee.   )ForAppellant:     ForAppellee:JoeHailey      CarthelL.Smith,Jr.Hailey&Seaton     Lexington,TennesseeSelmer,Tennessee@ MEMORANDUMOPINION@ MembersofPanel:@ LyleReid,Justice,SupremeCourt@ HewittP.Tomlin,Jr.,SeniorJudge@ CorneliaA.Clark,SpecialJudgeAFFIRMED      Tomlin,SeniorJudge7wKXXdXXd7ћ ThisworkerscompensationappealwasheardbytheSpecialWorkersCompensationPanelinaccordancewithprovisionsofT.C.A.506225(e)(3).WehavebythisopinionreportedourfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawtotheSupremeCourt. HazelManessFlatt( plaintiff)wasemployedbyGaryWrightandhissisterNitaMiddletontocarefortheirmother,LoreneF.Wright,atherresidenceinChesterCounty.Aspartofheremployment,plaintifflivedinMs.WrightshomefromMondaythroughFriday.OthersittersprovidedcareforMs.WrightonϜweekends.Plaintiffsjobdutiesincludedfixingmeals,cleaningthehouse,sweeping,vacuuming,washingclothes,takingMs.Wrightonerrands,andgenerallyjustwatchingafterher.OnaboutOctober5,1990,plaintiffinjuredherbackwhileassistingMs.WrightintoϜplaintiffscar. TherecordreflectsthatGaryWrightservedaspresidentofTheInsuranceMart,Inc.( defendant),acompanyengagedinthesaleofautomobileinsuranceinNashville.Wrightandhiswifewerethesoleshareholdersofthedefendantcompany.Hissister,NitaMiddleton,wasanemployeeofdefendant.PlaintiffwaspaidherweeklychecksfromdefendantspayrollforherservicestoMs.Wright.HerW2WageandTaxStatementfor1990listeddefendantasheremployer.However,defendantlistedplaintiffregularlyonitsNonEmployeeCompensationReport.Fortheseapparentreasons,ϜplaintifffiledsuitagainstdefendantintheChanceryCourtofChesterCounty. Followingabenchtrial,thechancellordeniedplaintiffsclaimforworkerscompensationbenefitsonthegroundsthat(1)plaintiffwasadomesticservantandnotanemployeeofdefendant,and(2)thatshewasalsoanindependentcontractor.Thisappealfollowed. ThesoleissueonappealiswhethertheevidencepreponderatesthechancellorsfindingthatplaintiffwasbothadomesticservantandalsoanindependentcontractorandthereforewasnotcoveredbytheWorkersCompensationAct.Forthereasonshereinafterstated,weaffirm. Onappeal,ourscopeofreviewoffindingsoffactbythetrialcourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,withapresumptionthatthejudgmentiscorrectunlesspreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.T.C.A.506225(e)(2).T.C.A.506106(3)readsinpertinentpartasfollows:8 506106.Employmentsnotcovered."TheWorkersCompensationLawshallnotapplyto:  .... (3)Domesticservantsandemployeesthereof. Onappeal,plaintiffcontendsthatsheisnotwithintheexcludedclassofdomesticservantsfortworeasons(1)heremployerwasdefendant,notMs.Wright,and(2)herdutiesincaringforMs.Wrightwereintherealmofpracticalnursing,notthoseofadomesticservant. Inaddressingplaintiffsfirstcontention,theproofisundisputedthatplaintiffneversoldinsurancefordefendant,nordidsheeverrenderanyservicestoorfordefendantatoraboutitspremises.Byherowntestimony,itwasestablishedthatherdutiesconsistedsolelyofperforminghouseholddutiesinMs.WrightshomeforMs.Wright.Thetestimonyisalsouncontradictedthatshortlyafterbeingemployed,plaintiffindicatedtoWrightandMiddletonthatshewishedtohavetaxeswithheldfromherpaycheck.Ms.MiddletontestifiedthatasamatterofadministrativeconvenienceϜforallpartiesinvolved,plaintiffwaspaidthroughdefendantspayrollfortaxwithholdingpurposes.Therecordalsoreflectsthatonvariousapplicationsfordisabilityinsurance,plaintifflistedMs.LoreneF.Wrightasheremployer. Plaintiffsrelianceupontheonlyreportedcaseinthisstatedealingwiththedomesticservantexception,Sharpv.Jenkins,367S.W.2d464(Tenn.1963),ismisplaced.InSharp,anemployeeofalumbercompanywasinjuredwhilemowingthecompanyownerslawn.ThisCourtrejectedtheemployersargumentthattheemployeeshouldbeexcludedfromcoverageundertheActbecausehewasworkingasadomesticservantatthetimeoftheinjury.Althoughtheemployeespentonedayaweekworkingattheownershouse,thiscourtheldthattheemployeesworkatthetimeofhisinjurywasincidentaltohissoleemploymentasagenerallaboreratthelumberyard.Moreover,theemployeewaspaidbythecompanyandwasinjuredduringhisregularworkinghours.Id.at46668.However,inthiscaseitisuncontradictedthatplaintiffsdutiesconsistedsolelyofcaringforMs.Wrightatherhome,andthatplaintiffneversoldinsuranceorprovidedanyotherservicesfordefendant.WefindSharptobeinapplicabletothiscase. Plaintiffallegesfurtherthatthetrialcourterredbydeterminingthatshewasanindependentcontractor,andthereforeexcludedfromcoverageundertheWorkersCompensationAct.WebeginbynotingthatitwassuperfluousforthetrialcourttomakesuchafindingafterhavingdeterminedthatplaintiffwasalreadyexcludedfromtheWorkersCompensationActunderthedomesticservantexception.WefurthernotethatthereisnoevidenceinthisrecordthatdefendanthadanyrelationshipwithplaintiffotherthanthefactthatGuyWrightandNitaMiddletonpaidplaintifffromdefendantspayrollfortaxwithholdingpurposes.TheproofisuncontradictedthatplaintiffwashiredbyWrightandMiddletonfortheexclusivepurposeofcaringfortheirmother.Thereisnoevidenceintherecordofanemplolyeremployeeorindependentcontractorrelationshipbetweenplaintiffanddefendant.Thiscontentioniswithoutmerit. Fortheabovestatedreasons,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedinallrespects.Costsinthiscauseonappealaretaxedtoplaintiff,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.̜    __________________________________________    HEWITTP.TOMLIN,Jr.,SENIORJUDGECONCUR:________________________________________    LYLEREID,JUSTICE________________________________________    CORNELIAA.CLARK,SPECIALJUDGE 4    X '̀@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATJACKSONHAZELMANESSFLATT,   ) ChesterChancery      ) TrialCourtNo.8076  Plaintiff/Appellee,  )      )VS.      ) Hon.JoeC.Morris,Chancellor      )      )J&);+'b|`  `@JTHEINSURANCEMART,INC.,  ) No.02S019601CH00007      )  Defendant/Appellee. ) AFFIRMED.@  JUDGMENTORDER  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponamotionforreviewpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandshouldbedenied;and Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. Costswillbepaidbytheplaintiff/appellant,HazelManessFlatt,andhersurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. ITISSOORDEREDthis____dayofNovember,1996.        PERCURIAMReid,J.,NotParticipatingԛ