263 N.C. App. 597
N.C. Ct. App.2019Background
- William Belk was hired by staffing company Aerotek and assigned in August 2014 to work as a mechanic at Boise Cascade’s Moncure plywood plant; he died on September 26, 2015 repairing Boise Cascade equipment.
- Belk’s estate obtained death benefits from the Industrial Commission in a workers’ compensation proceeding against Aerotek.
- The estate later filed a civil wrongful-death/negligence action against Boise Cascade in superior court.
- Boise Cascade moved to dismiss and later for summary judgment, arguing exclusive jurisdiction and remedy under the Workers’ Compensation Act because it was Belk’s “special employer.”
- The trial court denied summary judgment; Boise Cascade appealed, and the Court of Appeals treated the appeal as immediately appealable because it implicated workers’ compensation exclusivity.
- The parties’ staffing agreement expressly allocated day-to-day supervision and a right of control over temporary employees to Boise Cascade, while Aerotek retained administrative duties and workers’ compensation liability in the contract language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boise Cascade was a "special employer" of Belk such that the Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy | The estate argued factual evidence showed Boise Cascade did not actually control Belk’s work (no training/supervision) and prior Industrial Commission proceedings against Aerotek preclude Boise Cascade’s control finding | Boise Cascade argued the staffing agreement and undisputed facts established, as a matter of law, Boise Cascade had the right to control Belk’s day-to-day work and thus was his special employer | The Court held as a matter of law there was no genuine factual dispute: Boise Cascade had the right to control Belk’s work and was his special employer; exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Industrial Commission |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Bennett, 259 N.C. 16 (N.C. 1963) (right-to-control test for when a lent servant becomes special employee)
- Leggette v. J. D. McCotter, Inc., 265 N.C. 617 (N.C. 1966) (recognition of general vs. special employer concept)
- Harris v. Miller, 335 N.C. 379 (N.C. 1994) (contractual allocation of control is highly persuasive on special-employment question)
- Rouse v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp., 343 N.C. 186 (N.C. 1996) (applies Weaver control test; contractual right of control may still leave factual questions)
- Lemmerman v. A.T. Williams Oil Co., 318 N.C. 577 (N.C. 1986) (Workers’ Compensation Act divests courts of jurisdiction when it applies)