111 So. 3d 411
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Maximum Leisure, LLC developed land with Fletcher Trucking performing on-site work for the project.
- Courtney, a laborer for Fletcher, was injured while excavating and moving dirt in 2008.
- Courtney claimed he was an employee of both Fletcher and Maximum Leisure and sought workers’ compensation benefits.
- OWC determined Fletcher was performing manual labor for Maximum Leisure and that Breeland supervised the site; Maximum Leisure was Courtney’s borrowing employer.
- Trial reaffirmed that Fletcher was the employer for Courtney’s injury and found Maximum Leisure liable under the manual labor exception.
- Maximum Leisure appealed, and the court amended the judgment to make Fletcher liable jointly and severally for certain benefits; other aspects affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manual labor exception applicability | Courtney’s duties involved substantial manual labor for Maximum Leisure. | Truck driving is not manual labor; thus no automatic coverage under the manual labor exception. | Courtney performed substantial manual labor; exception applied. |
| Borrowing employer status | Maximum Leisure exercised control and was the borrowing employer for Courtney’s injury. | No on-site activity by Maximum Leisure; borrowing status not proven. | Maximum Leisure was Courtney’s borrowing employer; liable under LSA-R.S. 23:1031(C). |
| Direct employer solidarity with Fletcher | Fletcher was Courtney’s direct employer, liable in solido with Maximum Leisure. | Courtney’s direct employer status was not recognized; avoid joint liability. | Courtney entitled to recovery jointly and in solido against Maximum Leisure and Fletcher. |
| Admissibility and weight of evidentiary rulings | Certain testimony should have been excluded or given insufficient weight. | The lower court properly weighed credibility; rulings should stand. | No reversible error; credibility and weight were within the trial court’s discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mejia v. Boykin Brothers, Inc., 52 So.3d 82 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2010) (factors for borrowed employment and control)
- Sanchez v. Harbor Construction Co. Inc., 968 So.2d 783 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2007) (solidarity liability when borrowing employer exists)
- McGrew v. Quality Cameras, Inc., 74 So.3d 1253 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 2011) (manual labor substantial part test after 2004 amendment)
- VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 801 So.2d 331 (La. 2001) (interplay of exceptions and trial court discretion)
- OXY USA Inc. v. Quintana Production Company, 79 So.3d 366 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2011) (evidentiary and procedural considerations in exceptions)
- Connor v. Family Dollar Store, 36 So.3d 339 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2010) (weight of testimony and credibility determinations)
- Luper v. Wal-Mart Stores, 844 So.2d 329 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2003) (record adequacy and presumption of correctness on appeal)
- City of New Orleans v. Board of Directors of Louisiana State Museum, 739 So.2d 748 (La. 1999) (evidence admissibility and enlarging pleadings relation)