Charlie Jeffreys v. The Uninsured Employer's Fund, 0660173

Background

On Oct. 31, 2012, Charlie Jeffreys was injured (quadriplegia) when a beam fell while he helped rebuild the historic one-room Harvey School in Pittsylvania County.
The Harvey School Historical Society (≈15 members) formed to acquire/restore the school; it became an auxiliary of Mount Lebanon Missionary Baptist Church for tax-exempt status.
Annie Mosby (Society president) purchased the school (via husband), hired contractors and later William Johnson to dismantle/move/rebuild it; Mosby paid workers from personal funds but lived in California and did not supervise day-to-day work.
Johnson acted as the on-site boss, hired Jeffreys, chose materials, and supervised work; Mosby paid wages but did not control means/methods; Johnson was treated as an independent contractor.
Deputy commissioner initially found Mosby, the Historical Society, and the Church were Jeffreys’s employers and awarded benefits; the Commission reversed as to Mosby and later (on remand) concluded the Historical Society and the Church were neither direct nor statutory employers.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s substantive holdings that the Historical Society and Church were not Jeffreys’s direct or statutory employers, but remanded for the Commission to enter an order expressly reversing the deputy commissioner as to both entities and dismissing the claim.

Issues

Issue	Jeffreys' Argument	Fund / Historical Society / Church Argument	Held
Whether Historical Society and Church were Jeffreys’s direct employers	Mosby (as Society president) had ability to control workers; therefore Society and Church (as principal/auxiliary) were his employers	Society and Church had no contact or control over Jeffreys; Johnson actually controlled the work; Mosby lacked requisite control	Affirmed: Not direct employers (Mosby previously found not to be employer; Society/Church only related via Mosby; Johnson was the on-site supervisor)
Whether Historical Society and Church were statutory employers under Va. Code § 65.2-302 (i.e., owner’s trade/business included reconstruction)	The Society’s purpose to “purchase, restore, preserve, maintain” the school made reconstruction part of its trade/business, so owner liability attaches	The Society was a small nonprofit focused on fundraising/community outreach and intended to hire contractors; full reconstruction exceeded its ordinary trade/business; Church’s role was spiritual, not construction	Affirmed: Not statutory employers (reconstruction not part of Society’s or Church’s normal trade/business)
Whether Commission’s order provided complete relief (i.e., should reverse deputy commissioner as to all named parties and dismiss claim)	(Fund) Commission should fully reverse and expressly dismiss claim against all named entities	Commission failed to reverse deputy decision as to Church and did not expressly dismiss claim; Fund requested modification	Court: Agreed with Fund; remanded for revised order expressly reversing deputy commissioner as to Historical Society and Church and dismissing Jeffreys’s claim

Key Cases Cited

Artis v. Ottenberg’s Bakers, 45 Va. App. 72 (statement on appellate review standard) (Va. Ct. App.)
Creative Designs Tattooing Assocs. v. Estate of Parrish, 56 Va. App. 299 (employee/independent contractor mixed question) (Va. Ct. App.)
Intermodal Servs., Inc. v. Smith, 234 Va. 596 (control test for employee vs. independent contractor) (Va.)
Rusty’s Welding Serv., Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va. App. 119 (deference to Commission’s factual findings) (Va. Ct. App.)
Henderson v. Cent. Tel. Co. of Va., 233 Va. 377 (statutory-employer purpose to prevent owner escaping liability by subcontracting) (Va.)
Rodriguez v. Leesburg Bus. Park, LLC, 287 Va. 187 (mixed question: owner’s trade/business analysis) (Va.)
Nichols v. VVKR, Inc., 241 Va. 516 (normal-work test for private owners) (Va.)
Shell Oil Co. v. Leftwich, 212 Va. 715 (origin of the “normal work” test) (Va.)
Pfeifer v. Krauss Constr. Co. of Va., 262 Va. 262 (commercial developer as statutory employer analysis) (Va.)
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 276 Va. 19 (law-of-the-case doctrine) (Va.)
Johnson v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 244 Va. 482 (trade/business inquiry depends on facts/circumstances) (Va.)
Cinnamon v. IBM Corp., 238 Va. 471 (normal-work test is a guide, not dispositive) (Va.)