HUGH DANCY CO., INC. v. Mooneyham
68 So. 3d 76
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mooneyham was injured on May 18, 2006 at Dancy's premises and sought workers' compensation.
- An Administrative Judge found Mooneyham an employee of Dancy and covered by workers' comp.
- Dancy and Valley Forge challenged both employee status and alternative independent-contractor theory.
- Evidence included Mooneyham returning to work at Dancy for four days weekly and receiving four checks.
- The AJ concluded there was an implied contract of hire; the Commission affirmed; circuit court affirmed.
- This appeal challenges the Commission’s employee-status determination and, mootly, the independent-contractor issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mooneyham was an employee under Mississippi law | Mooneyham had an implied contract of hire | Mooneyham was not under control; independent contractor status possible | Mooneyham was an employee under the implied contract of hire |
| Whether Mooneyham was an independent contractor (argued moot) | Not necessary if employee status is found | Could be independent contractor if no contract of hire | Moot since employee status resolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. Jackson County Bd. of Supervisors, 916 So.2d 564 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (elements of contract of hire: mutual consent, consideration, right of control; not rigidly applied in workers' comp)
- Walls v. North Miss. Med. Cntr., 568 So.2d 712 (Miss. 1990) (consideration may be anything of value; volunteer status discussed)
- Wade v. Traxler, 100 So.2d 103 (Miss. 1958) (right of control crucial in employer-employee status)