Right of control secures borrowed servant status, bars suit

Although Louisiana courts consider a number of factors in determining whether a worker is a borrowed servant, the right of control factor weighs heavily.

Case name: Manning v. Sampson, et al., No. 10-CA-151 (La. Ct. App. 10/12/10).

Ruling: The Louisiana Court of Appeal dismissed a worker's lawsuit against his employer, holding that it was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law.

Sub-subcontractor's employee not entitled to coverage from contractor (02/25/13)
Cleaner's use of helpers indicates independent contractor status (11/01/12)
Statement made weeks before termination moves claim forward (09/30/11)
Failure to rebut rehab counselor's report boosts driver's claim (04/19/12)
Hospital not subject to penalties for worker's fall in elevator shaft (04/19/12)

What it means: Although Louisiana courts consider a number of factors in determining whether a worker is a borrowed servant, the right of control factor weighs heavily.

Summary: A laborer began working for a company through a temporary staffing agency. While working, he suffered injuries when a beam allegedly fell from an overhead crane and struck him in the face. The laborer sued the company. The parties disputed whether the laborer was a borrowed servant of the company. The Louisiana Court of Appeal dismissed the laborer's suit, holding that it was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law.

In finding that the laborer was a borrowed servant, the court stated that the laborer admitted that the company had the right of control and that the company's employees told him what work to do. The company could terminate him or give him a raise. The company provided the laborer with safety glasses, a hard hat, and all of the equipment to perform his job. Additionally, the company interviewed the laborer prior to starting work even though he did not fill out a job application with the company.

The laborer argued that his check stubs demonstrated that he was an employee of the temporary agency. The court noted that although the laborer was paid by the agency, the company reimbursed the agency for the amounts expended on the payroll.

The laborer also asserted that the company was not listed as his employer in his medical records, but the court stated that was not controlling in the test to determine whether he was a borrowed servant.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

December 27, 2010

Newsletter Sign-up