741 S.E.2d 538
S.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Fortner was injured while pressure washing the Serenbetz property on April 19, 2010.
- Fortner was employed by Custom Building at the time of the injury; Evans Construction allegedly directed the work.
- Custom Building and Evans Construction had a contractor-subcontractor relationship for the specific pressure-washing task.
- Evans Construction employees routinely performed similar cleaning/pressure-washing work for goodwill; ownership and control aspects linked the two entities.
- The Appellate Panel held Fortner was Evans Construction’s statutory employee under § 42-1-400; the single commissioner’s findings were reviewed for credibility.
- The case centers on whether Evans Construction was the statutory employer and thus liable for Fortner’s workers’ compensation benefits under the WCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Evans Construction Fortner’s statutory employer under § 42-1-400? | Fortner argues he was Custom Building employee; Evans Construction is statutory employer. | Evans Construction contends no statutory employment relationship existed. | Yes; Evans Construction is Fortner’s statutory employer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ost v. Integrated Prods., 296 S.C. 241, 371 S.E.2d 796 (1988) (Foss three-part analysis for statutory employment)
- Voss v. Ramco, Inc., 325 S.C. 560, 482 S.E.2d 582 (Ct.App.1997) (owner/subcontractor framework for coverage)
- Pineland v. Proper Mold & Eng’g, Inc., 337 S.C. 313, 523 S.E.2d 766 (1999) (contract terms not controlling for statutory employment)
- Murray v. Aaron Mizell Trucking Co., 286 S.C. 351, 334 S.E.2d 128 (Ct.App.1985) (owner = principal contractor; statutory employer concepts)
- Riden v. Kemet Elecs. Corp., 313 S.C. 261, 437 S.E.2d 156 (Ct.App.1993) (jurisdictional fact; favor coverage)