was actually exercising control over the manner in which the independent contractor’s work was performed. Rather the statement means that Peregrine agrees to provide a job for WGPS. Peregrine additionally insists that the retroactivity factor does not change the analysis of liability under Chapter 95. WGPS was an independent contractor as a matter of law because (1) its purpose and work on Platform 969 was independent and distinct from Peregrine’s purpose ; (2) it agreed to furnish the tools and supplies necessary and material to perform its duties on that platform ; (3) Peregrine did not exercise any right to control that work; and (4) WGPS was responsible for paying its employees for the work performed on platform 969. Texas A & M Univ. v. Bishop, 156 S.W.3d 580, 584-85 (Tex.2005) (<HOLDING>). MSA, Ex. B, at ¶¶ 7, 17-24. Moreover there is
holding that the right to control the means by which the work is accomplished is clearly the most significant test of the employment relationship and observing that many of the other factors enumerated in the restatement second are merely evidentiary indicia of the right to control holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act holding that the right to control is measured by considering 1 the independent nature of the workers business 2 the workers obligation to furnish necessary tools supplies and materials to perform the job 3 the workers right to control the progress of the work except as to the final results 4 the time for which the worker is employed and 5 the method of payment whether by unit of time or by the job holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work holding that workers compensation is the exclusive remedy as a matter of substantive law and hence whenever it appears from the plaintiffs pleadings bill of particulars or the facts that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant the obligation of alleging and proving noncoverage or applicability of workers compensation benefits falls on the plaintiff the court continued stating that waiver may be accomplished by ignoring the issue to the point of final disposition