In Medina v M & J Enterprises, d/b/a Luis Chop Suey (LIRC) 3/14/02, evidence was insufficient to establish a minimum of 5 employees. ALJ reversed, because minor employer, not covered under law.
In Ashlock v Container Disposal, (E.D. 78420), (On appeal as of 2/01) 8/3/00 (ALJ Schwendemann), No coverage under the Act for fewer than 5 employees.
In Breeze v Helm & Sons Lumbar Co.,23 S.W.3d 886 (Mo.App. S.D. 2000), in determining whether an ordinary employer has at least 5 or more employees employed for at least 5½ consecutive days, the evidence here held insufficient to establish that employer’s use of a “pool” of more than 5 workers meant the employer at least 5 employees.
In Wimeth v Timi, 26 S.W.3d 476 (Mo.App. 2000), The evidence supported finding that business was covered employer, even though claimant did not report earnings as wages. SIF disputed liability of $194,000.00 in medical as uninsured employer.
In George-Brewer v Pen Mar Southwest, 980 S.W.2d 147 (Mo.App. W.D. 1998), to be under the Act, the alleged employer must have five employees. The ALJ held that the claimant failed in her burden to show five employees.