Filed Date: 10/28/1976
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER — STATUS OF EXAMINERS Examiners appointed by the Insurance Commissioner under authority of 36 O.S. 305A [36-305A] (1971), whose salaries are fixed by the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to said statute, occupy the status of state employees, as distinguished from that of independent contractors. The Attorney General is in receipt of your opinion request wherein you ask whether examiners appointed by the Insurance Commissioner, under authority of 36 O.S. 305A [36-305A] (1971), whose salaries are fixed by the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to said statute, occupy the status of state employees or independent contractors. Title 36 O.S. 305A [36-305A] (1971), provides in pertinent part as follows: "The Insurance Commissioner may appoint such deputies, assistants, examiners, actuaries, attorneys, clerks and employees, at salaries to be fixed by the Insurance Commissioner, as may be necessary properly to discharge the duties imposed upon the Insurance Commissioner under this code. The Insurance Commissioner shall appoint all examiners for his office. . ." Clearly, the Insurance Commissioner has the authority under the above statute to appoint examiners, as well as set the salaries to be paid them. The Thirty-fifth Oklahoma Legislature, acting in the Second Regular Session, has however, by line item appropriation under a general appropriation statute, 3 Okl. Sess. Laws (1976), pgs. 278, 279, specifically provided for the number of examiners to be appointed by the Commissioner pursuant to 36 O.S. 305A [36-305A]. The Legislature provided for two examiner positions, that of Chief Examiner and that of Agents Examiner. The Legislature furthermore established the parameters within which the Commissioner may set the salaries for the individuals occupying the examiner positions. It is noted that, in so doing, the Legislature referred to the examiner positions as being "employee" positions. The distinguishing factors to be considered in arriving at a determination as to whether an individual occupies the status of employee or that of independent contractor are plainly set out in a recent Utah case, Harry L. Young and Sons, Inc. v. Ashton, Utah,