240 A.3d 243
R.I.2020Background
- On November 19, 2010, Joshuah Selby, a foreman directing a tree-removal crew, was pinned between a rolling bucket truck and a dump truck at a Cranston residence and suffered severe, permanently disabling injuries.
- Selby received workers’ compensation benefits via Mulch‑N‑More (an affiliated company owned by defendant Michael Baird) and later commuted that award.
- Selby sued MPTS (Mike’s Professional Tree Services), Baird, and coworker John Rossi for negligence; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing workers’ compensation exclusivity barred the tort claims if Selby was an MPTS employee.
- Defendants submitted evidence (Selby’s deposition admissions that he worked for MPTS and wore MPTS apparel; MPTS safety/training forms signed by Selby; photographs and affidavits) indicating MPTS exercised control over Selby.
- Selby argued he was paid and insured by Mulch‑N‑More and pointed to alleged Workers’ Compensation Court findings and a Baird deposition (not in the record) to create an ambiguity about his employer.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding MPTS was the employer; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity of employer for purposes of Workers’ Compensation exclusivity | Selby: paid and insured by Mulch‑N‑More; that creates a genuine factual dispute whether Mulch‑N‑More (not MPTS) employed him, so tort claims survive. | Baird/MPTS: MPTS exercised control and supervision; Selby admitted he worked for MPTS and signed MPTS forms; therefore exclusivity bars tort suit. | Court held MPTS was Selby’s employer based on control/superintendence; workers’ compensation exclusivity barred the negligence claims and summary judgment was proper. |
| Effect of administrative/payroll/payment/benefit arrangements on employer status | Selby: payroll and WC processing by Mulch‑N‑More show Mulch‑N‑More was employer or create ambiguity. | Defendants: administrative/payroll role by Mulch‑N‑More does not alter who exercised operational control (MPTS). | Court followed precedent that payment/benefit administration alone does not negate the employer who exercised control; MPTS was employer. |
| Reliance on Workers’ Compensation Court finding or out‑of‑record deposition to create dispute | Selby: asked court to take judicial notice of WC Court’s alleged finding and relied on Baird deposition (not in record) to show Mulch‑N‑More employment. | Defendants: such materials did not create a properly supported dispute in the summary‑judgment record. | Court declined to rely on deposition not in record and did not treat the asserted WC finding as creating a triable issue; evidence in record favored MPTS. |
| Fraud claim that Baird insured Selby under Mulch‑N‑More despite employment by MPTS | Selby: Baird committed fraud by insuring him under Mulch‑N‑More while he worked for MPTS. | Defendants: fraud claim was not raised below and hence was not properly preserved for appeal. | Court held the fraud argument was waived because it was not pleaded or argued in the lower court and therefore not considered on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deus v. S.S. Peter and Paul Church, 820 A.2d 974 (R.I. 2003) (employer status turns on right to control and superintendence; benefit-administration alone does not negate employer).
- Sorenson v. Colibri Corp., 650 A.2d 125 (R.I. 1994) (Workers’ Compensation exclusivity applies where the special/general employer analyses show the defendant exercised control; administrative payment by another entity does not permit separate tort suits).
- LaFreniere v. Dutton, 44 A.3d 1241 (R.I. 2012) (Workers’ Compensation benefits are in lieu of other remedies for the same injury; courts discourage parallel tort litigation).
- Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc., 212 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2019) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo; nonmoving party must produce competent evidence of a material factual dispute).