“To the extent that the board considered factors that did focus on control and direction in connection with the inspectors’ performance of services, that analysis was flawed,” Associate Justice Sabita Singh wrote on behalf of the panel. “The board cited Tiger requirements that are also regulatory requirements. For example, the board noted that inspectors had to complete a written report following each inspection, but this report is mandated by regulation. See 266 Code Mass. Reg. § 6.03 (2008). That Tiger required the inspectors to meet regulatory standards does not show Tiger’s direction and control.”


Click Here To Read The Full Article