Molina v. State Garden, Inc.
88 Mass. App. Ct. 173
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Molina was a temporary worker assigned by staffing company American Resource Staffing Network, Inc. (ARS) to State Garden, Inc., and suffered a work-related back injury at State Garden's facility.
- Molina received workers' compensation benefits paid under ARS's policy; that policy contained an "alternate employer endorsement" naming State Garden as an additional insured for workers' compensation and employers' liability coverage.
- State Garden directed Molina's day-to-day work (making it the "direct" or "special" employer); ARS retained certain administrative control (the "general" employer).
- Molina had signed a Waiver and Release with ARS at hiring, agreeing (to the extent permitted by law) not to sue ARS clients for injuries covered by workers' compensation.
- Molina sued State Garden for negligence in Superior Court; State Garden moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under the exclusivity provisions of the Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Act, and the motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing Molina's complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an "alternate employer endorsement" in the general employer's WC policy satisfies G. L. c. 152, § 18 as an agreement making the special employer liable for payment of compensation (thereby triggering exclusivity) | Molina: § 18 requires an agreement that the special employer actually pay benefits; the endorsement does not satisfy that requirement | State Garden: endorsement makes State Garden an insured person under the policy and thus the special employer covered and liable under § 18 | Held: The endorsement constitutes the agreement contemplated by § 18 and renders State Garden immune under the Act |
| Whether State Garden qualifies as the "direct" employer for purposes of the Lang two-part immunity test | Molina: (implicitly) disputes that designation | State Garden: it directed hours, duties, and daily supervision, so it is the direct employer | Held: State Garden is the direct (special) employer and satisfies part two of the Lang test |
| Whether Molina's signed Waiver and Release barring suits against ARS clients is enforceable | Molina: waiver signed before employment existed is merely a covenant not to sue and invalid | State Garden: release is enforceable and precludes suit against clients for injuries covered by WC | Held: Release is valid and bars Molina's action (consistent with Horner) |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on this record | Molina: disputed factual/legal sufficiency to apply exclusivity and enforce waiver | State Garden: entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on endorsement and waiver | Held: Affirmed — summary judgment properly granted in favor of State Garden |
Key Cases Cited
- Lang v. Edward J. Lamothe Co., 20 Mass. App. Ct. 231 (discusses two-part test for special-employer immunity)
- Numberg v. GTE Transport, Inc., 34 Mass. App. Ct. 904 (applies § 18 principles where no agreement to shift liability existed)
- Fleming v. Shaheen Bros., 71 Mass. App. Ct. 223 (defining direct-employer control test)
- Horner v. Boston Edison Co., 45 Mass. App. Ct. 139 (upholding a staffing-company release barring suits against clients)
- Galloway's Case, 354 Mass. 427 (on general vs. special employer distinctions)
- Cal-Dive Intl., Inc. v. Seabright Ins. Co., 627 F.3d 110 (5th Cir.) (endorsed view that alternate-employer endorsement treats alternate as an insured)