172 So. 3d 1252
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- Collins injured his knee while performing a pre-employment road test for Averitt Express during hiring/orientation.
- Averitt contends Collins was not an employee and thus not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.
- An AJ ruled Collins was an employee under an implied contract of hire and entitled to benefits; the full Commission affirmed.
- Collins was required to pass a road test containing a job-function segment; he injured himself during the test.
- Averitt rescinded the job offer after Collins failed the road test and paid some orientation-related expenses; Collins sought benefits for his injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there an implied contract of hire at injury time? | Collins argues mutual consent, consideration, and control created an implied contract. | Averitt argues no mutual consent or employee relationship. | There was mutual consent, consideration, and right of control; Collins was an employee. |
| Is mutual consent established by the hiring letter and orientation participation? | Letter and participation show intent to hire. | Letter does not create enforceable contract for hire. | Mutual consent established; hiring formed an implied contract. |
| Is there sufficient consideration to support a contract for hire? | Collins's travel, orientation pay, and testing benefited Averitt. | No benefit to Averitt from the road test. | Sufficient consideration; benefit to employer from testing and recruitment. |
| Did Averitt retain the right of control over Collins during the road test? | Averitt controlled test procedures and instructions. | No control over an applicant who was not yet an employee. | Averitt had right of control; control supports employee status. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review for the Commission’s decision? | Review is for substantial evidence, correctness under law, and constitutional rights; the Commission’s decision was supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. Jackson Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 916 So.2d 564 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (elements of contract for hire include mutual consent, consideration, and right of control)
- Walls v. N. Miss. Med. Ctr., 568 So.2d 712 (Miss.1990) (whether person is employee may be law or fact; right of control matters)
- Dodson v. Workers’ Compensation Division, 210 W.Va. 636, 558 S.E.2d 635 (2001) (pre-employment test can establish employee status if it benefits employer)
- Wade v. Traxler Gravel Co., 232 Miss. 592, 100 So.2d 103 (1958) (right of control can show employer-employee relationship)
- Lott v. Hudspeth Ctr., 26 So.3d 1044 (Miss.2010) (standards for reviewing Commission decisions)