Pineda v. Manpower International, Inc.
2017 Ark. App. 350
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Pineda was injured on February 6, 2010, while working at the Welspun plant; he had been hired by temporary-agency Manpower and assigned to Welspun.
- Pineda settled his workers’ compensation claim with Manpower by joint petition approved July 25, 2013; that settlement did not involve Welspun.
- Pineda sued Welspun Pipes, Inc., Welspun Tubular, LLC, and several supervisors in circuit court for negligence; defendants asserted workers’ compensation exclusivity and obtained leave to pursue the employment issue before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission).
- Welspun sought a Commission determination that it (and both Welspun entities) were Pineda’s special/dual employer at the time of the injury, which would bar the third‑party tort suit under Ark. Code Ann. § 11‑9‑105.
- The ALJ found, based on testimony (primarily from Martin Cain) and the staffing-services agreement between Manpower and Welspun Pipes, that dual employment existed and that Welspun had secured workers’ compensation coverage; the Commission affirmed.
- On appeal Pineda argued: (1) the joint‑petition settlement deprived the Commission of jurisdiction; (2) Welspun Tubular, LLC, was not shown to be an employer; and (3) Welspun failed to secure workers’ compensation for him, negating exclusive‑remedy protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the joint‑petition settlement with Manpower deprived the Commission of jurisdiction to decide if Welspun was a special employer | Pineda: § 11‑9‑805 ends the Commission’s jurisdiction over claims/results arising from the settled injury, so Commission lost jurisdiction to decide Welspun’s employer status | Welspun: The only issue before the Commission was whether Welspun enjoyed exclusive‑remedy immunity as a special employer — an issue the Commission has exclusive original jurisdiction to decide | Held: Commission retained jurisdiction; § 11‑9‑805 is inapplicable because Welspun (not party to settlement) sought a determination on employer status only |
| Whether Welspun Tubular, LLC, was proved to be a special/dual employer | Pineda: No contract or evidence ties Welspun Tubular to Manpower or to Pineda’s employment; thus it cannot claim dual‑employer status | Welspun: Testimony (Cain) and the overall workplace facts apply to both Welspun entities; reasonable minds could conclude they are the same employer for purposes of dual employment | Held: Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s finding that both Welspun entities were effectively the same and thus dual employers; affirmed |
| Whether Welspun secured workers’ compensation coverage for Pineda so as to obtain exclusive‑remedy protection | Pineda: Even if dual employer, Welspun failed to provide/secure coverage for him, so exclusive remedy should not apply | Welspun: The staffing agreement required Manpower to provide workers’ compensation for assigned employees and Welspun paid premiums; Welspun also had a policy in effect at the time | Held: Substantial evidence that Welspun secured workers’ compensation coverage; employer need only prove existence of a policy, not that the employee was actually listed; exclusive remedy applies |
| Standard of review — whether Commission’s factual findings supported | Pineda: Commission misapplied burden and accepted inadequate evidence, particularly as to corporate identity | Welspun: Commission’s credibility determinations and fact‑finding are entitled to deference; evidence supports findings | Held: Court applies substantial‑evidence review and defers to Commission’s credibility choices; findings displayed substantial basis and are affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sayre v. State of Ark. Second Injury Fund, 12 Ark. App. 238, 674 S.W.2d 941 (Ark. Ct. App. 1984) (joint‑petition settlement bars Commission jurisdiction over additional claims/results from the settled injury)
- Coonrod v. Seay, 367 Ark. 437, 241 S.W.3d 252 (Ark. 2006) (Commission has exclusive original jurisdiction to determine employer‑employee relationship for workers’ compensation immunity)
- Johnson v. Bonds Fertilizer, Inc., 375 Ark. 224, 289 S.W.3d 431 (Ark. 2008) (only the Commission may decide existence of employer‑employee relationship under the Act)
- National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Tri‑State Iron & Metal, 323 Ark. 258, 914 S.W.2d 301 (Ark. 1996) (sets three‑part test for when a special employer becomes liable under dual‑employment doctrine)
- Minn. Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (Ark. 1999) (describes substantial‑evidence review standard for appellate review of Commission findings)
- Wilhelm v. Parsons, (Ark. App.) 481 S.W.3d 767 (Ark. Ct. App.) (employer need only prove existence of a workers’ compensation policy for exclusive‑remedy protection)