is exempted from its purview, and therefore its requirement to insure its employees for workplace injuries, if the employer has less than three employees “regularly in service” within his business. See Code § 65.2-101 (2)(h) (“Employee”); Ragland v. Muguruza, 59 Va. App. 250, 255, 717 S.E.2d 842, 844-45 (2011) (quoting Hoffman v. Carter, 50 Va. App. 199, 210, 648 S.E.2d 318, 324 (2007)); Craddock Moving & Storage Co. v. Settles, 16 Va. App. 1, 3, 427 S.E.2d 428, 430 (1993). See generally Cotman v. Green, 4 Va. App. 256, 356 S.E.2d 447 (1987) (discussing the same principle). If a particular employer is challenging his being subject to the Act, it is his burden to prove that he had less than three employees “regularly in service” within his business. 01, 364 S.E.2d 221, 224 (1988) (<HOLDING>); see also Craig v. Doyle, 179 Va. 526, 531-32,
holding that a general contractors right to forbid the work from being performed in a dangerous manner and the fact that he would have stopped the work and required protective equipment had he seen the employee of the independent contractor not using such equipment merely showed the possibility of control not actual control holding that putative employers control over result but not manner in which work was performed is factor that weighs in favor of independent contractor status holding that if the putative employee has the discretion to adopt the means and methods he wishes to accomplish the required work he is an independent contractor holding that duty to ensure that independent contractor performs its work in safe manner arises if the general contractor retains some control over the manner in which the independent contractor performs its work holding that under the mwa the question of whether an employee was an independent contractor or an employee was a question of statutory interpretation