Bowens v. Allied Warehousing Services, Inc.
229 W. Va. 523
| W. Va. | 2012Background
- Bowens, employed through Manpower, was assigned to Allied Warehousing and operated at Allied's Kenova facility in WV.
- Allied routinely staffed its Kenova warehouse with Manpower workers and paid Manpower, including payroll deductions and workers’ compensation premiums.
- Allied administered forklift training and testing (Field Test and Clark Equipment Operator Training forms) for temporary workers before allowing operation of equipment.
- Bowens allegedly received a forklift training test and a field evaluation signed by Allied supervisor J.R. Jeffrey; Bowens disputes the testing and certification.
- Bowens was injured on April 23, 2007 while operating a forklift; he received temporary total disability benefits and later permanent partial disability benefits.
- Bowens sued Allied and others for various claims including workers’ compensation fraud and common law fraud; Allied moved for summary judgment and the circuit court granted it, and later held Allied was a special employer with workers’ compensation immunity for negligence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud claims dismissal proper | Bowens contends ALJ relied on nonmedical fraud evidence. | Allied asserts Manpower, not Allied, submitted the documents; ALJ’s decision hinged on medical evidence. | Yes; fraud claims properly dismissed; no reliance on fraudulent documents shown. |
| Special employer immunity | Bowens argues Allied was not a special employer and cannot claim immunity. | Allied is a special employer under Larson framework; Bowens was effectively Allied’s employee for purposes of immunity. | Yes; Allied is Bowens’s special employer, entitled to workers’ compensation immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maynard v. Kenova Chemical Co., 626 F.2d 359 (4th Cir. 1980) (adopts Larson-based special-employer immunity framework)
- Cobb v. E.I. duPont deNemours & Co., 209 W.Va. 463, 549 S.E.2d 657 (1999) (fraud pleading and proof requirements for employee claims)
- Horton v. Tyree, 104 W.Va. 238, 242, 139 S.E. 737 (1927) (elements of fraud require actual reliance and damage)
- Lengyel v. Lint, 167 W.Va. 272, 280 S.E.2d 66 (1981) (fraud elements and proof standards; reliance and injury)
- Myers v. Workmen’s Compensation Com’r, 150 W.Va. 563, 148 S.E.2d 664 (1966) (control factor determinative in employee status)
- Spencer v. Travelers Insurance Co., 148 W.Va. 111, 133 S.E.2d 735 (1963) (control/supervision as key to employee status)
- Davis v. Fire Creek Fuel Co., 144 W.Va. 537, 109 S.E.2d 144 (1959) (right to control determines employee vs independent contractor)