328 So.3d 1194
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- On Jan. 13, 2009, Brendon Preston (a Benbrook Contracting employee) fell into a hole on Southern University's campus while doing Hurricane debris/tree removal and received workers' compensation from Benbrook.
- Preston sued Southern (through its Board) in tort for his injuries; Southern moved for summary judgment asserting statutory-employer tort immunity under La. R.S. 23:1061A.
- The operative contract was a Benbrook purchase order/addenda requiring Benbrook to carry "Workers' Compensation—Statutory" insurance and to name Southern as additional insured.
- The trial court granted Southern's summary judgment (May 24, 2019) and denied Preston's motion for new trial (Oct. 18, 2019); Preston appealed.
- The majority held the contract sufficiently "recogniz[ed]" Southern as a statutory employer, creating a rebuttable presumption of statutory-employer status; Preston failed to produce evidence that the work was not part of Southern's trade/business, so Southern was immune.
- Judge Penzato dissented, arguing the contract did not expressly recognize a statutory-employer relationship and that immunity must be strictly construed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written contract "recognizes" Southern as a statutory employer per La. R.S. 23:1061A(3) | Preston: contract language (insurance clause using the word "Statutory") does not expressly recognize Southern as statutory employer | Southern: purchase order and addenda (workers' comp requirement, additional-insured clause) sufficiently recognize statutory-employer status | Majority: contract generally recognizes Southern as statutory employer (presumption arises); Dissent: contract fails to expressly recognize statutory-employer relationship |
| Whether the work performed was part of Southern's trade, business, or occupation (integral/essential) | Preston: debris removal is not within Southern's institutional mission; genuine factual dispute exists | Southern: campus maintenance and emergency debris removal are integral to Southern's operation and services | Held: Preston produced no competent evidence to rebut presumption; work was part of Southern's business; issue immaterial because of immunity |
| Proper allocation of burdens (presumption and burden shift) | Preston: burden should not shift to him to disprove statutory-employer status | Southern: written contract triggers rebuttable presumption; once triggered, employee must rebut by showing work not integral | Held: Majority applies presumption and shifts burden to Preston; he failed to rebut |
| Adequacy of discovery / timeliness of summary judgment; denial of new trial | Preston: summary judgment was granted before adequate discovery; new trial should have been granted | Southern: plaintiff had a fair opportunity for discovery; SJ filed many years after suit and was supported | Held: Court finds no abuse of discretion — Preston had fair opportunity and summary judgment was proper; denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. State ex rel. Ernest N. Morial-New Orleans Exhibition Hall Auth., 842 So. 2d 373 (La. 2003) (explaining statutory-employer doctrine under the Act)
- Spears v. Exxon Mobil Corp. & Turner Indus. Group, L.L.C., 291 So. 3d 1087 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2019) (presumption of statutory employment from written contract and burden-shift principles)
- Mitchell v. Southern Scrap Recycling, L.L.C., 93 So. 3d 754 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2012) (contractual recognition creates rebuttable presumption of statutory-employer relationship)
- Solomon v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 539 So. 2d 715 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1989) (maintenance/repair work can be integral to principal's business)
- Jackson v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 897 So. 2d 684 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2004) (cases contrasting when maintenance-type work is or is not part of principal's business)