Johnson v. Motiva Enterprises LLC
128 So. 3d 483
| La. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Vincent E. Johnson, an environmental cleanup truck driver employed by USIS (successor to AbClean), was exposed to benzene vapors at Motiva’s Norco refinery during tank-cleaning operations and later filed a tort suit against Motiva and two Motiva employees.
- Johnson received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer and sued Motiva in district court seeking tort damages; Motiva asserted statutory-employer immunity under La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(3) based on a written contract between Shell (Buyer) and AbClean (Vendor) that listed Motiva as a Buyer affiliate and Norco as a participating location.
- Trial court sustained Motiva’s exceptions of no cause and no right of action, finding Motiva a statutory employer and dismissing the tort suit; the appellate court remanded for a ruling on the statute’s constitutionality.
- On remand the trial court upheld the 1997 amendment (La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(3)) as constitutional, denied declaratory relief, and again found Motiva immune in tort; this appeal followed.
- The central legal questions were (1) whether the Shell–AbClean contract conferred presumptive statutory-employer status on Motiva (an affiliate) under § 23:1061(A)(3), (2) whether contract language was ambiguous or invalid under Prejean, (3) whether mental-injury claims fall outside the LWCA so as to preserve a tort remedy, and (4) whether § 23:1061(A)(3) is unconstitutional (equal protection, due process, access to courts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Motiva is a statutory employer under La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(3) | Contract was only between Shell and AbClean/USIS; no separate contract with Motiva, so Motiva is not a statutory employer | Section 32 names Buyer affiliates (including Motiva) and Norco as participating location; contract language creates statutory-employer status for affiliates | Motiva is a statutory employer under the contract; presumption applies (affirmed) |
| Whether the contract is ambiguous (independent-contractor clause) | Independent-contractor provision creates ambiguity and should be construed against Motiva | Section 32 expressly excepts services in Louisiana and controls; provisions read together are not ambiguous | Contract is not ambiguous; Section 32 governs and confers statutory-employer status |
| Whether Prejean invalidates the contract (unlawful condition re: workers’ comp) | Contract improperly shifts obligation so Prejean renders immunity provision unenforceable | Contract does not condition statutory employer liability on employer’s insolvency; solidary obligation exists under LWCA | Prejean inapplicable; contract doesn’t create unlawful condition; statutory employer liability stands |
| Whether mental-injury claims remove statutory-employer immunity (i.e., are not covered by LWCA) | Johnson’s mental injuries (fear of cancer, depression) may not be compensable under LWCA, so tort remedy should remain | Mental injuries are cognizable under LWCA (with higher claimant burden); burden to prove compensability remains on claimant | No requirement that defendant prove coverage; claimant bears burden; Motiva need not overcome mental-injury issue to obtain immunity |
| Whether La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(3) violates equal protection | Amendment arbitrarily discriminates among similarly situated injured workers | Classification is rationally related to legitimate state interests (spreading industry cost, prompt benefits) | Rational-basis test satisfied; no equal-protection violation |
| Whether La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(3) violates due process or access to courts | Statute deprives Johnson of vested property/right to sue and meaningful access to courts | LWCA provides a specialized tribunal and expedited remedy; procedural and substantive due process satisfied | Statute does not violate procedural or substantive due process; access to courts preserved via LWCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Prejean v. Maintenance Enterprises, Inc., 8 So.3d 766 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2009) (contract conditioning principal’s compensation obligation on contractor insolvency was infirm)
- St. Angelo v. United Scaffolding, Inc., 40 So.3d 365 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (broad application of who may benefit from statutory-employer provision among corporate affiliates)
- Fleming v. JE Merit Constructors, Inc., 985 So.2d 141 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2008) (contractual intent can create statutory-employer status)
- Mitchell v. Southern Scrap Recycling, L.L.C., 93 So.3d 754 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2012) (statutory-employer clause enforced despite independent-contractor language elsewhere in contract)
- Moore v. RLCC Technologies, Inc., 668 So.2d 1135 (La. 1996) (upholding tort immunity under pre-1997 “integral relationship” test)
- Bowens v. General Motors Corp., 608 So.2d 999 (La. 1992) (statutory employer and direct employer are solidarily liable under LWCA)
- O’Regan v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc., 758 So.2d 124 (La. 2000) (discussing limits where workers’ comp remedy is unavailable)
- Sibley v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 477 So.2d 1094 (La. 1985) (equal-protection review framework)
Decree: The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all respects — Motiva is immune in tort as Johnson’s statutory employer and La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(3) is constitutional.