employee). Because independent contractors are customarily paid for their work, the requirement of a contract of hire is seldom an issue and the primary focus is usually on the employer’s right to control the worker. See, e.g., Vance Int’l, 191 Ariz. at 100-01, ¶¶ 9-11, 952 P.2d at 338-39; Anton, 141 Ariz. at 574, 688 P.2d at 200 (focusing on “right to control” in determining that injured claimant was an employee rather than an independent contractor). ¶ 14 When determining whether a claimant is an employee or a volunteer, however, the inquiry will generally focus less on the right to control and more on the presence or absence of a contract of hire. See Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Our Nation’s Forgotten Workers: the Unprotected Volunteers, 9 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 147, 173 n. 131 (2006) (<HOLDING>). The distinction between an employee and a
holding that probation department employees are not county employees recognizing that the right to control test used for distinguishing independent contractors from employees is not particularly helpful in distinguishing volunteers from employees holding that classification of claims or interests must be reasonable and recognizing reasonableness of distinguishing trade creditors claims holding that the copyright act distinguishes between employees and independent contractors for copyright possession holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation