 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blea v. Fields8/15/2005
891 P.2d at 566. We have since broadened this test to include additional factors: (1) the type of occupation involved and whether it is generally performed without supervision; (2) the skill required for the job; (3) whether the employer furnishes the tools or instrumentalities for the job; (4) how long the individual has been employed; (5) whether the work is part of the employer's regular business; and (6) whether the employer is engaged in business activities. Celaya, 2004-NMSC-005, 14-15.
Plaintiff argues she raised genuine issues of material fact regarding at least some of the Houghland factors that should have precluded summary judgment. The facts to which Plaintiff points, however, are either irrelevant to Defendant's employee status or otherwise insufficient to bring into question whether MMC had the manner and means to control Defendant's performance, directly compensated Defendant, furnished his equipment or had the power to terminate Defendant at will. In particular, Plaintiff claims MMC did not have the right to control Defendant as illustrated by a provision of the December Agreement that precluded MMC from interfering with Defendant's exercise of his own professional judgment in his practice. This provision, however, is neither dispositive nor particularly material to whether Defendant was an employee of MMC under the Tort Claims Act. See Celaya, 2004-NMSC-005, 11-13 (explaining that particularly in the context of professionals, the right-to-control test is more nuanced than simply inquiring whether the employer could control the details of an individual's work); Beeck v. Tucson Gen. Hosp., 500 P.2d 1153, 1157 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972) (stating that whether a hospital has the right to control the details of a physician's practice is no longer considered a relevant concern for purposes of vicarious liability).
We must, then, analyze the material facts regarding Defendant's working relationship with MMC, over which there does not seem to exist much dispute between the parties. The December Agreement precluded Defendant from engaging in the practice of medicine except as an employee of MMC.It allowed MMC to fire Defendant with or without cause and comprehensively dictated the terms of his service. Cf. Yerbich v. Heald, 89 N.M. 67, 69, 547 P.2d 72, 74 (Ct. App. 1976) (stating that where a contract does not discuss the power to fire, making the contract terminable at will, " here is a factual question as to the power to discharge"). MMC required Defendant to maintain certain office hours and seek permission from MMC to change them, to maintain membership on the active medical staff of MMC and fulfill all obligations of such membership, and to perform other duties and services requested from time to time by MMC. Under the Agreement, MMC compensated Defendant with a salary, benefits, and insurance, as well as paying relevant taxes and professional dues and providing him with leave time.MMC billed patients directly for all services provided by Defendant after December 1, 1994. After December 1, 1994, MMC provided all of Defendant's supplies, equipment, and staff, and leased the office space where Defendant practiced for purposes of operating its specialty Rheumatology Clinic, although this office was in the former private office of Defendant, a separate facility from MMC.
In light of these facts, Plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding Defendant's employee status under the Houghland and Celaya factors. Cf. Houghland, 119 N.M. at 427-29, 891 P.2d at 568-70 (reversing summary judgment for defendant hospital after concluding there was a factual dispute material to whether an allegedly negligent doctor was an apparent agent of the hospital und
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 New Mexico Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|