Wagner v. State
242 Ariz. 95
Ariz. Ct. App.2017Background
- Nancy Wagner, employed by private contractor Wexford Health Services, slipped and fell on an unmarked wet floor while providing healthcare at an Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) prison.
- Wagner recovered workers’ compensation benefits from Wexford and also sued the State alleging ADC negligently maintained the premises.
- ADC and Wexford had a multi-year exclusive contract: ADC provided/maintained facilities, approved hires, required notice/consultation before terminating professional staff, mandated Wexford carry workers’ compensation insurance, and reserved monitoring and access rights.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for the State, concluding ADC was Wagner’s statutory employer under A.R.S. § 23-902(B) and workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy under A.R.S. § 23-1022(A).
- Wagner appealed, arguing ADC lacked sufficient control/supervision and that inmate healthcare was not a part or process of ADC’s trade or business.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADC was Wagner's statutory employer under A.R.S. § 23-902(B) | ADC lacked sufficient control/supervision over Wexford/Wagner; contractual disclaimer shows no employment relationship | ADC retained the right to control/supervise Wexford’s methods and monitored performance per the contract | ADC retained supervisory control; statutory-employer prong satisfied |
| Whether Wexford’s healthcare services are a “part or process” of ADC’s trade or business | Privatization and contracting-out show healthcare is not part of ADC’s regular business | ADC has an ongoing statutory duty to ensure inmate healthcare; providing healthcare remains part of ADC’s prison operations | Healthcare provision is part/process of ADC’s business; second prong satisfied |
| Whether contractual labeling (disclaimer of employment) defeats statutory-employer status | Contract language stating contractor/employees are not ADC employees creates fact issue | Labels do not control; courts look to substance and totality of control factors | Labels irrelevant; substance and control determine status |
| Whether workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy against the State | N/A (plaintiff argued tort claim should proceed) | Statutory-employer finding makes workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy under A.R.S. § 23-1022(A) | Workers’ compensation is exclusive; tort claim against State barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Tilley v. Delci, 220 Ariz. 233, 204 P.3d 1082 (review of summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Indus. Comm’n, 147 Ariz. 456, 711 P.2d 595 (workers’ compensation as exclusive remedy)
- Young v. Envtl. Air Prods., Inc., 136 Ariz. 158, 665 P.2d 40 (statutory employer analysis)
- Home Ins. Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 123 Ariz. 348, 599 P.2d 801 (factors to assess control/supervision)
- Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. Indus. Comm’n, 148 Ariz. 102, 713 P.2d 303 (right to control/supervise methods)
- Anton v. Indus. Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 566, 688 P.2d 192 (substance over contractual labels)
- DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr. Inc., 144 Ariz. 6, 695 P.2d 255 (duty to provide care cannot be delegated)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment requires adequate inmate medical care)