*1 yоnd bankruptcy proceedings dismissal of justified meaning within the of 11 U.S.C. 349(b) in the when it is best interest of
§ Thus, bankruptcy
creditors. court did doing.
not abuse its in so discretion In re Vela, 231; 87 B.R.
Santiago at In re Mir
anne,
Moreover, significant that even directly by bankruptcy
when asked
judge, object failed Gonic’s counsel
the continued retention of these funds. On error,
appeal, absent clear or manifest this only
court will consider those issues raised bankruptcy
below before the court. In re Peak, (10th
Pikes 779 F.2d Cir.
1985); States, Gundy v. United 728 F.2d (10th Cir.1984). Having un been error,
able to discover clear we find addi justification bankruptcy
tional
court’s conclusions. For reasons de applied
tailed above and because it standards,
proper hereby affirm the
district court’s decision.
Affirmed. HODGE, al.,
Mercedes SANTIAGO et
Plaintiffs, Appellees, COMPANY, al.,
PARKE DAVIS & et
Defendants, Appellants. 86-2135,
Nos. 87-1461. Appeals,
United States Court of
First Circuit.
Heard June July
Decided
law, (3) whether the failing court erred in a thorough poll conduct jury verify unanimity verdict, (4) whether the claims were barred *3 applicable (5) statute of limitations and whether the claim plaintiffs of one of the should have been dismissed for to failure exhaust available administrative remedies.
DISCUSSION I. IMMUNITY A. Statutory Employer Ware, Donald R. with whom Steven W. questions Two were certified Phillips, Schwartz, Foley, Z. Hoag Andrew Supreme Court of Puerto Rico regarding Eliot, Adams, Brown, & Charles P. application of the statutory employer Cordova, brief, Newsom & were on for immunity to Parke Davis. The text defendants, appellants. questions these and a description detailed Calderón, Jr., Alvaro R. with whom José of the Parke Davis and relationship Labs L. Rodriguez-Mangual and José Julián Al- are in contained said certification. Santia varez-González, brief, plain- were on for go Hodge Co, v. Parke Davis & 859 F.2d tiffs, appellees. Thereafter, in response to our query, April on the Supreme Bownes, Judge, Coffin, Before Circuit Court of opinion, Puerto Rico issued an Judge, Torruella, Senior Circuit English official translation of which is at Judge. Circuit tached as an opinion. exhibit to this TORRUELLA, Judge. Circuit Essentially, the Supreme Court of Puerto appeal This is an from judgment en- Rico certified that the “statutory employ- tered the United States District Court er” apply doctrine does a context for the District Appellants of Puerto Rico. parent corporation where a all owns (“Parke Davis”), Parke Davis Co. and two stock of subsidiary, its but each entity has corporate officers subsidiary, of their Par- identity, own legal only agree- and the (“Labs”), claim that the tab district court ments provide them are to between license application erred in its of Puerto Rico law and technical assistance. The court indi- and its denial of various motions. For the cated that “for a pаrent company to be reasons stated below we affirm. considered statutory employer of its sub- sidiary’s employees, there
The facts of this case center
must exist a
around
piecework, project or
charging appellants
claims
service
negligence
contract be-
tween
corporations
both
failing
provide
place
a safe
compelling
work
after
parent company to
appellees, employees
ex-employees,
pay
premiums
the State Insurance
contraceptive pill production,
Parke Davis'
Fund in the event the
subsidiary fails to do
estrogen
suffered from
so.” The
contamination.
Court
found that the
reproduced
These
contractual relationship
facts are
in more detail
be-
companies
tween the
did
Santiago Hodge
Co.,
not render
v. Parke Davis
Parke
&
(1st
“statutory
Davis a
Cir.1988).
employer.”
personally making safety involved mat- Corporate Immunity B. record, Upon ter decisions. review of the Officer’s support there evidence to is sufficient corporate Appellants argue also offi- finding Kupsky per- and Larsen were Kupsky H. and Kenneth W. cers Charles involved, sonally agree hence we with the Larsen, president each of whom served as district court’s conclusion. Labs, corporаte tort were immune from *4 Appellants allege that the work- liability. II. JURY POLLING compensation immunity extends to an
ers’
if
employer’s corporate officers
insured
argue
next
this court
Appellants
employer’s
the
they are sued for
breach
should reverse the district court and order
providing
employ-
nondelegable duty of
upon
a hew trial based
the district court’s
work-place.
ees with a safe
thorough poll
to
a
refusal
conduct
verdict,
jury. Prior to the return of the
the
Kupsky
found that
jury
After the
ju-
a note from one of the
court received
for, or
personally responsible
Larsen were
agreement
stating
rors
she was not in
providing employees
directly involved with
“question”
damages and that she
the
they
and that
a safe work environment
pur-
answering
question only
the
was
duty,
this
negligent
performing
were
poses of the record. That note also was
judgment against
court entered
district
signed by
foreperson,
added that
who
agree that the district
these officers. We
jurors
and the other
did not share the
she
аnalysis to deter-
applied
proper
court
juror.
reading
From a
opinion of the first
corporate
liability.
mine the
officers’
ambiguous
possible
notes it is
to
of these
In
v. Ortho Pharma
Escudé Cruz
they
that at the time
were writ-
conclude
(1st Cir.1980),
Corp.,
Audette Rico., 383, (1982)). D.P.R. 385 Puerto 113 956, (1st Cir.1986), and ascer F.2d 958-59 parties’ opposing The issue here is the ju the verdict reached tained that damage as to became views when and unanimous. rors was untainted by plaintiffs being as caused known Audette, In this court stated that defendant. poll to make certain purpose jury of a was Supreme of Puerto Rico has Court jury reached a unanimous and that the had held that the statute of limitations starts to i.e., verdiсt, any to eliminate un- uncoerced plaintiff run on the date that becomes certainty unanimity as to verdict. injury person aware of the and the who suggested 70. In that case we also Id. at Geigel, caused it. Prieto v. 115 Colón polling for individual and preference our Prieto, D.P.R. In Colón held that the trial court has “substantial jury. Court dealt with statute limita- poll to decide how to discretion” malpractice tions issue in a medical insur- Fishing Corp., Audette v. Isaksen case, alleged (quoting ance claim. that defendant F.2d at 959-60 United States v. (D.C.Cir. plain- the action time Mangieri, 694 F.2d was barred because context, Procedure, poll not been included in the restate that at least in a civil to but has poll We need not not to remains within the district court’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. significance Fishing Corp., decide the of this choice at this discretion. See Audette v. Isaksen (1st Cir.1986). present purpose time. It is our 789 F.2d 958-59 sufficient for ultimately responsible of of the Parke Davis was of the cause had an idea tiff knew or employee safеty. injury. review, Upon jury find that the was developed an plaintiff Prieto In Colón application properly instructed on his tongue after a visit his
infection in limitations, jury inter- the statute of that visited Subsequently, he surgeon. dental properly rogatories were submitted condi- to this inquire as again dentist doing applied that the court so district gone something had tion, suspecting Furthermore, record properly. the law dentist by the informed wrong. He was made to this objections that were shows no After had self inflicted. the sore been error of we find no law we effect. Because treatment, an- he visited an unsuccessful they if findings to see jury’s review the him surgeon who informed other dental supported by were the evidence. surgical by a injury was caused that his appel The determination when these In view of facts instrument. injury knowledge of “both lees had file order to Court established defendant,” the act of its connection with it. caused must know who the victim action Listi, F.2d 1131-32 Lavellee at this suspicions, it was Despite plaintiff’s (9th Cir.1980), question of fact. Id. is a оf who aware Cf. plaintiff became point that such, jury for the to determine As was damage. This had caused and what charged appellees could be plaintiffs when ruled, required was it was interpretation, knowledge trigger having sufficient negligent perpetrator where situations Although, alle of limitations. the statute ignorance or trust benefits of law are reviewed de gations of errors Geigel, Prieto v. injured. Colón fact, findings novo, findings are jury D.P.R. 232. findings cannot be set aside of fact *6 although appel- that shows The record sup insufficient to unless evidence the idea” that their may have “had lees port the verdict. related, employment all condition work was that examining the record we find After Davis, such as Parke sources and official findings. supports the factual While physicians, as Insurance Fund the State appellees “had that shows there is evidence of Puer- Industrial Commission aswell suspected that their condition an idea” or Rico, their them that condition to informed prior filing time to was work related sоme was not work-related.2 suit, appellees that also evidence there is cause of their case, of the actual appellees visited became aware instant In the statutory period. Be- injury re within physicians who Fund State Insurance jury’s find- cause, supports the record complaints their condition ported that Service, F.2d Land 586 ing, Sea Borras v. working hor relationship with with had no 885, disturb its decision. at will their is also evidence that mones. There Commission, Industrial efforts before Summary Judgment B. Motions for agency that administrative appropriate cases, summary Upon motion for compensation handles worker’s all court must view judgment, also district fruitless. Commission proved inferences that facts and reasonable specific com employees found that light most fa in the drawn con be therefrom estrogen not related to plaints were See, e.g., non-movant. Celotex vorable to further The facts demonstrate tamination. 317, 324-25, Catrett, 477 U.S. orp. v. not C lack of awareness was plaintiffs’ that 2553-54, 2548, 265 carelessness, 91 L.Ed.2d 106 S.Ct. negligence, own due their proper (1986). Summary judgment is when diligence, Rivera Encarna lack or cf issue as to material genuine there is no Puerto Libre Asociado de v. ción Estado to a fact, moving party is entitled 385, and the finally, that Rico., at 113 D.P.R. relationship [they hav- no reports had "found had] on Industrial Commission 2. Most of the ing rin,....” dealing such as nolest- suffering with hormones they certain been were record state that it psychological conditions but physical and 634
judgment Id.; as a matter of law. see (1986). also F.2d If “fair minded” Inc., Kennedy Josephthal persons & Co. could draw different inferences (1st Cir.1987); F.2d Fed.R.Civ.P. then the matter is for jury. Upon Id. case, 56. In the review, Rule instant the district we find provides that the record court found that there was an issue as to adequate evidentiary basis for the district appellees when became aware that court’s decision to submit the matter to the their condition resulted estrogen from jury. con-
tamination. The affidavits filed ap- pellees plaintiffs stated that were never IV. DISMISSAL OF PREMATURE they told could be physically affected CLAIM mentally exposure to the active Appellants finally argue that one ingredients used in the manufacture of oral plaintiff’s3 claims should been have contraceptives. contrary, they To the were dismissed because premature. it was It always told that their was not condition contends that the Workmen’ Com Accident estrogen exposure. related to Since knowl- pensation Act mandates dismissal4 when edge of the cause of injury required their there is a State Insurance Fund claim suit, to file Geigel, Colón Prieto v. awaiting adjudication. final After careful D.P.R. at appellee’s affidavits evidence applicable law, research of the we find that genuine issue as to a material fact. court properly district declined dis Thus, the district court committed no error miss the action. Alvarado v. Calaino appellants’ denying request for summa- Romero, (1975), 104 P.R.R. judgment. ry Supreme Court of Puerto Rico stated that [wjith regard action, to the workman’s C. Motion directed verdict there is dicta to the effect that if it is For the same reasons underlying their brought prematurely it is null and void. summary claim, judgment appellants next Negron v. Comm’n, Industrial claim that there was insufficient evidence P.R.R. 282 If we were turn support jury’s finding in reference to such doctrine, construction into a final the statute of limitations and that the issue however, fully we would not comply district court denying therefore erred ing purpose with the legislation appellants motion for directed verdict. *7 under our consideration. The declaration
The standard of review for a mo nullity unduly protect of would the third tion directed verdict is party, to that similar when what is inferred our from applied request to a summary judg statute protect is the desire to the Fund’s ment. It is well upon settled that right the con subrogation. We consider that sideration of a verdict, motion for directed that the complaints decide prema filed the evidence light must be viewed in the turely voidable, are instead of void is non-movant, most favorable to the giving more consistent with the Only law. every him the benefit of may, course, favorable infer Fund of demand its annul may fairly ence that drawn therefrom. through filing ment in due time of its Service, Borras v. Sea Land 586 F.2d subrogation action of and the corre (1st Cir.1978), quoted prayer Valedón sponding for declaration of nulli Hospital Presbiteriano, Martínez v. ty- employed plant Teresa Velilla was at the from 4. applicable provides pertinent statute $300,000 part: 1970to 1982. She was awarded district court. Velilla had filed injured a claim with the Neither the employee workman or injuries State Insurance Fund for the nor his any al- beneficiaries same institute action leged against party ... complaint responsible third in the filed for the with district damages expiration until after ninety court. of The State Insurance claim Fund was days the date of the final and prior enforce- filed to the federal district court claim and able Manager decision the case pending appeal was still when the instant was the State Insurance Fund. filed. (Official Translation). 32§ L.P.R.A. controversy damage related suits. The is the instant situation. disposes of
Alvarado Guerra, jurisdiction and those 105 novel in our De v. Guerra Jesús See also such, split in uphold the entertained the issue are their As have P.R.R. give clear the facts that because it is Let us examine court’s decision views. district controversy. the statute at issue rise to the purpose ex- Insurance Fund’s protect the State and not that right subrogation clusive I have do not party. Appellants a third ripeness. the action’s standing to contest Company & Parke Davis herein, the deci- the reasons stated For (“Parke”), company en- a States United the district court sion of manufacture, gaged in the distribution products, estab- appel- pharmaceutical sale of granted Costs Affirmed. subsidiary, incorporated lished Parke lees. (“Labs”),1 principal Davis Labs with offices wholly Fajardo, Puerto Rico. Parke APPENDIX was created as an inde- Labs which owns EXHIBIT ad- corporation. As such it takes pendent tax incentives of- vantage of Puerto Rico’s (Translation) Federal Internal Revenue via the fered OF THE COURT IN SUPREME created, 936.2 Since it was Labs sec. Code RICO PUERTO con- packaged oral manufactured and has No. CT-88-615 Certification traceptives. al, Hodge et Santiago
Mercedes
agreements:
signed
Labs
two
Parke and
Agree-
Assistance
License and Technical
appellees
Plaintiffs and
1, 1969; and a Techni-
September
ment
Agreement of December
Assistance
cal
al.,
Davis & Co. et
Parke
Parke
agreements
licensed
In these
patents,
appellants
of its
nonexclusive use
Defendants
Labs
in manufac-
its
and trademarks
discoveries
DENTON
HERNANDEZ
MR. JUSTICE
pro-
committed to
turing process, and was
Court.
opinion of the
delivered
subsidiary
the technical in-
viding
cer-
necessary to manufacture
formation
Rico,
Juan,
March
Puerto
San
quality
control
well as
products, as
tain
issues
important
examine
we will
Here
standards,
specifications- and
packaging
immunity from claims
concerning employer
Further-
processing guidelines.
similar
under the Workmen’s
injured workers
necessary
more,
provide the
Parke would
Act,
Aрril
No. 45 of
Accident
operational
*8
in several
assistance
technical
(11
seq.)
et
L.P.R.A.
§
them,
safety.
among
employee
aspects,
Appeals for
of
States Court
The United
license,
agreed
pay
to
Labs
For such
ques-
us two
has certified
Circuit
the First
(5%)of
percent
of
its
royalty
five
Parke
L.P.R.A.,
(4
App.
Rule 27
tions under Court
reimbursement
assured
It likewise
53.1(c) (32 sales.
Rule
I-A),
Procedure
and Civil
plus
On
costs
the technical service
15%.
if a
of
III).
must decide
L.P.R.A., App.
We
right
hand,
retained the
to
other
Parke
considered
company may be
parent
of the manufac-
inspections
on-site
subsidiary’s
conduct
its
“statutory employer” of
products.
turing process and its
from work-
thus be immune
employees and
practical
activity
For
mat-
in Puerto Rico.
subsidiary
trial
was known as Par-
Originally, the
1.
up
company
set
a subsidi-
should
Corporation.
ters a stateside
tab
operations if it
ary corporation to
the local
run
incentives, at least 80%
from these
benefit
To
tax incen-
the federal
to benefit from
wishes
origi-
gross
corporative
should
revenue
of the
936(a)(2).
§
tives. 26 U.S.C.
least 75% of
Puerto Rico and at
nate
or indus-
a business
should stem from
revenue
so,
If
is the determination of statu-
tory employer status to
solely
be made
subsidiary’s
From the
standpoint,
on the basis
agreement,
of the
agreements did not bind Labs to sell its
courts consider the de facto relationship,
products exclusively
Parke,
to
rather they
based, for example, on
corporate
allowed Labs to sell to
persons
third
unre-
structure of the parent-subsidiary rela-
strictively. Nonetheless,
always
Labs
sold
tionship or the economic nature of the
production
all its
to Parke.
relationship?
mainly
are
Plaintiffs
Labs employees3
Since this case
questions
involves
who suffered a
physiological
series of
dis-
Puerto Rican law that are crucial for the
resulting
exposure
orders
to hor-
adjudication
appeal,6
of the
in the absence
mones in
employment.4
the course of their
of clear-cut precedents
law,
in our case
and
They
agаinst
brought suit
Parke and sever-
in view of
fact
that we have an ade-
al Labs
officials
the United States Dis- quate
pertinent
statement of the
facts, we
trict Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
accept the certification. Pan
Comp.
Ame.
They alleged that the
neg-
defendants were
Corp. v. Data
Corp.,
Gen.
$2,815,000.5 II The appealed. defendants Among other According to the compensa- workmen’s things they seek reversal judgment regime tion established in the Workmen’s of the United States District Court. They Accident Compensation Act, when an em- allege they were covered the immu- ployee injury, suffers an illness or is dis- nity under the Workmen’s Accident Com- abled or dies as a result “any act or pensation appellate Act. The court deemed function work,” inherent in and his [his] necessary certify the following ques- employer is according law, insured his tions of to this law Court: right to compensation is limited to the stat- utory compensation through offered 1. Does the statutory employer doc- State Insurance Fund. See arts. and 20
trine apply in the parent-sub- context of (11 L.P.R.A. 21). §§ sidiary corporations, where the subsidi- ary wholly parent, owned injured worker thus lacks a cause of corporations bound the activi- action to sue his for damages, ties relevant to the case a licensing regardless employer’s degree neg- agreement? ligence. Osorio, De Jesús v. 65 P.R.R. *9 employees’ 3. Some appear also 6.Although relatives as other errors are raised that would plaintiffs. dispose of the case resolving without need of the question, certified apply do not to all the.se plaintiffs. Among 4. depression, libido, these are: loss of dizziness, schizophrenia, headaches, fibrocysts having After examined appendix V.l the of of gastrointestinal and disorders. appeal the Circuit, record on before the First we also plaintiffs’ argument consider meritless Originally jury damages the awarded question in more the certified was not raised in the dollars, than seven million but the sums were court Apparently, below. this seems to be the by by reduced the court way of opinion remittitur. of Appeals. Court the
637 wages paid to all the payrolls the said working for or employees and workmen Re (1946); Cortijo v. Water Walker 604 him, by job the by whether or employed P.R.R. 563 Authority, 91 sources the em- person with whom sоme under Court, Co., Superior (1964); Inc. B.C.R. job, the or under a contracted for ployer (1972); Admor. 756-757 P.R.R. subcontractor independent or contractor Prods., 107 Hnos. Cement v. Flores F.S.E. employer; by said employed or contracted (1978). 789, 792 D.P.R. by the collected accounts or taxes and all “integrated on the basis ... system, This employer’s on the shall be based State social, liability,” Cortijo objective aof included in shall be payroll which current implemented Walker, at was supra, laborers; Provided, the above-mentioned of forsakenness to the state put an end applicable shall not be provision That this in- were engulfed the workers who which done employers whom work is n who and accidents in work-related jured insured who is independent contractor an in negligence employer’s prove had to their provisions of employer under the as an in- If the compensation. order obtain 20). (11 L.P.R.A. chapter. this Art. § lucky, got he a belated was jured worker the incorporates “contractor- This article nоthing. As relief; not, got if he monetary majority A clause into our statute. under” higher the framed, compromised plan the similar jurisdictions have United States general the available under compensation Larson, See, su- general, 1C provisions. but in return for moderate rules civil law pur- the One of 49.00 49.11. pra, and §§ on based statutory compensation reliable poten- prevent is to poses of this article at Id. dependency. coverage when statutory evasion tial compensable However, a worker’s when costs, subcontracts employer, to reduce an in circum- occurs or death injury, disease unin- ordinary operations with of his part may be person” a “third where stances Id. 49.00. contractors. § sured Compensa- liable, Accident the Workmen’s wording of the cited comprehensive liability of not affect civil Act does tion the State Insurance sees to it that provision stranger to the is a wrongdoer who pay- on information obtains sufficient Fund relationship. The stat- employer-emplоyee compute and invoice eventually rolls immunity from to extend does not seek ute does not employer When premiums. 2A A. strangers. See claims to worker’s person who con- obligation, his meet Compen- Larson, The Law Workmen’s must work or service him for the tracted (1988). such circum- sation, Under 71.10 § it. up for make the State stances, injured worker and Fund, subrogating itself Insurance Workmen’s construing 19 of the art. may file an action employee, benefits Act, has this Court Accident (11 L.P.R.A. party. Art. 31 a third against only to forestall “not that it seeks stated 32.) Act, protect § but also to evasion irresponsible employees of and workers system, the compensation finance To imposing subcontractors uninsured compulsory insurance establishes statute contractor, who principal liability on 2 and See arts. employers. system for all choosing subcon- his 19). power, it within The statute has (11 L.P.R.A. §§ protec- appropriate tractors, upon to insist pay their employers to compels only accidents.” insurance, аgainst but the tion [work-connected] employees’ Industrial Commis- Santiago v. premium subsidiarily liable Colón also It was sion, of a P.R.R. (“taxes”) workers payments first Santiago when him or Colón precisely who “contracted” person employer” to re- “statutory independent the term of “a contractor workers used to distin- the lat- principal him contractor hired when fer subcontractor” subcontractor, the real insured: him from the were not guish ter *10 employee of an employer shall, contractual on re- or employer Every insured a work-related compensation for in seeks include who payrolls, annual porting his legal linking nexus the worker’s direct em- ployer wrongdoer to the in the “mutual accident, principal may when the contractor legal obligation” employee to insure the protected by employer immunity. Fund, with the facing we would be a “third at Id. 204-205. party” lacking statutory protection against A.F.F., Lugo In v. 105 D.P.R. Sánchez by injured claims workers. (1977), propriety we examined of an damages seeking actiоn for work-related Ill employee injuries by filed of an insured bar, In the case at the contractual rela- independent contractor. action was tionship Labs, of defendant Parke with brought against project the owner of a workers, real employer plaintiff does under construction who had contracted the correspond “principal not the link con- employee's employer. work with the real “project tractor-subcontractor” or owner- We that in those cases where held contractor” in the context of a contract for arises, relationship described contractual work or only services. These are the cases principal project contractor or owner is in applied statutory which we have party” meaning not “third within the a employer doctrine. 31, “statutory employer,” art. im- but a claims mune from worker reason of The license and technical assistance being expressly exempt obligation from the agreements corporations between these in those carry policy cases where the project contracts. Neither do the tech- independent contractor was insured. Id. at nical agreements assistance turn Parke also, 864-865. See de Vda Costas P.R. statutory into the employer of Labs’s work- (1978); Olefins, 107 D.P.R. Rodri- ers, although because these are service Inc., guez Grafito, v. Union Carb. 107 contracts principal linked to the contrac- D.P.R. 849-850 business, tor’s according agreement, to the Parke only obliged is the one to offer the recognized Our case law has servic- “statutory es to Labs. In employer” within the context the best of cases the rela- tionship just way contract or subcontract for work or ser- the other around. vices, owners, is, only project That principal statutory Labs would be the em- had, ployer employees contractors or subcontractors who of those Parke who offer injured worker, regard the mu- subsidiary. technical services to the Under legal obligation law, tual to insure him with the our case Parke cannot be considered See, State Insurance Fund. Lugo statutory San- employees of Labs’ 866-867; chez, supra, E.L.A., at F.S.E. v. project absence of a con- service (1981). Therefore, 111 D.P.R. agrees tract which Labs to work for Vargas Reyes, Ruiz Diaz v. 109 D.P.R. Only 761 Parke. in this situation would the (1980), adopt refused to legal common “mutual obligation” to insure Labs’s doctrine, family immunity employees which all em- arise between Parke and Labs.7 ployers taking part project in the same argues Parke it should be con- were immune from claims workers la- plaintiffs’ sidered statutory employer be- boring project. in the said Id. at 763. Labs, cause subsidiary, its is in charge of Diaz, supra, at part production. Ruiz we stated According Parke, determinant factor immunity “a statutory employer simply person ‘a “[t]he is the existence of that direct or indirect person who hires perform part another ” link between the workman who Brief, suffers the of its (Appellants’ 6), work’ at employer that, ends, accident and the the сourse to such the court examine employment consequence whose and as the nature of all the economic and the de injury place.” which the takes Absent that parties ties between the without hav- facto arguing respon- 7. Parke is incorrect in that it is company’s employ- stockholders to insure the payment Moreover, policy premiums sible for generally ees. the stockholders are employees subsidiary Labs’ in the corporation’s event its fails not liable for the debts and obli- compel corporation to do so. The law gations. does not *11 work-connected, plaintiff the
accident was compensation receive solely entitled to was the contract. itself to ing to circumscribe Fund. Insurance from the State agree. do not We appealed we judgment reversing the relationship between The contractual stated: employer” “statutory the actors under the ap- to its crucial always been has though doctrine there is no unanimous Even Sánchez, at supra, Lugo pliсation. See sustains prevailing the doctrine opinion, relationship (“Within contractual its to grants immunity the statute that the Authori- Resources Water Zachry, the extend does not employer the insured ”) ‘statutory’ or principal ty employer, is an shareholders, officers, directors, Costas, su- de (underscore supplied); Vda. employ- of said or managers, co-workers regarding defen- (“The decision at 785 pra, In the absence er. omitted]. [Citations statutory employer de- as position dant’s to regard expression with legislative of a relations be- contractual pends on the parties” “third meaning of term the the workmen’s and the said tween Act, grant defendant we shall art. 31 of the used in supplied.) (Underscore employer.”) real it that meaning assuming its usual in- accept to the Moreover, every person if we were aside from even includes employ- between supply contract his insured employee of a jured existence er_ purchas- the consecutive ex- corporations, justification is no two [T]here contraceptive Labs’s by of all of law to immunity granted Parke tending es trigger the con- suffice to employ- do products directors, officers, not other contract The immunity clause. tractor’s do not employer who insured ees of the purchase-sale not a 19 is art. described defray the ex- to personally contribute See, Atiles, v. Industrial Mgr. contract. in- they have when of the Fund penses (1947). 470, 472 Commission, P.R.R. dam- and have caused negligence curred its always sold Labs fact that simple The (Citations employees.8 other ages to Parke, there was when production entire omitted.) 258-259. Id. at so, grant cannot obligation to do no extend automatically refused We thus seller’s employer of the immunity as buyer persons immunity to all those employees. are owners in or who occupy positions who Parke Likewise, simple fact entity employs corporate trigger does not Labs wholly owns employee. injured 72.13, Larson, at immunity. supra, § 2A relationship between Consequently, López our decision That was 14-75. in the that described is not Parke Labs Delama, D.P.R. 254 Rodriguez Acci- the Workmen’s clause of contractor’s a dismis- case we reviewed In said com- parent aFor Compensation Act. dent by compa- a brought damage claim of a sal statutory employer to be considered pany way her injured employee was ny who —on must employees, there subsidiary’s a accident traffic after work—in home con- or service project piecework, exist in a vehicle passenger as a traveling while compel- corporations both tract between sharehold- company’s by one driven premi- company pay parent ling the the accident Although and officers. ers in the Fund Insurance to the State ums law, employee did not covered was The to do so. subsidiary fails event the Fund. Nei- Insurance State report it em- trigger the not do this case rather, facts of she employer; sue her she did ther 19 of in art. immunity contained ployer and his insur- the vehicle the driver sued Act.9 Accident Workmen’s that since the court ruled The trial er. liability pass Parke’s civil on We not present, need minority At view. has become This however, same; certi- issue was statutes. This (10) under local only States retain the ten through legislation. error mainly as not even raised change come us. It was fied to has Larson, Compensa- Appeals s Law Workmen the Court of 2A A. before appellants 72.22, tion, and 14-116— at 1468 §§ 72.11 Circuit. the First 14-117. *12 640 all,
trine. After manager this is the of how the State Insurance objectively Fund IV weigh parent company whether or not the opinion We cannot close this without legal obligation had the to insure its subsid- stating immunity that the iary’s employees in the event the latter grounded contractor art. on the clause of failed to do so.12 alter-ego confused with the cannot be Judgment will accordingly. be rendered correctly appellants10 doctrine. As have stated, subsidiary’s corporate the veil when pierced just and it is that it is the shown JUDGMENT- ego parent company, the alter of both cor- Juan, Rico, San Puerto March
porations are for all effects treated as one For opinion, the reasons set forth the entity. parent company In this case the which is integral part judg- made an of this immunity, not would have because is the ment, certify “statutory that the em- injured statutory employer worker’s but ployer” apply doctrine does not in the con- employer. because it is his direct In the parent text of corporation a that owns all however, consideration, case before our the stock subsidiary of its when each com- attempted parties pierce none of the has pany legal has its identity own and be- corporate veil.11 tween only them there exists some license Finally, adopt, any we shall without agreements. and technical assistance Re- therefor, statutory grounds the solutions gardless of the corporate nature of the adopted jurisdictions in other to settle this structure, relationship contractual be- type controversy, particularly when a companies tween the is crucial in determin- approach common has not been reached. ing application “statutory of the em- See, Adopting Reality Note: an Economic ployer” answer, doctrine. In view this Determining Corpora- Test when Parent there is no need to answer second certi- tions’ Status Workers’ question. fied (1987); Davis, Purposes, J.Corp.L. Compensation Using hereby Workmen’s We an En- order the Bureau of Transla- — terprise Theory Employment to Deter- tions of this Court to translate forthwith Party Tort-feasor, present opinion mine is Third judgment Who a for its timely U.Pitt.L.Rev. 289 It is incumbent certification to said federal court. upon Legislature pertinent to take the agreed It was so by and ordered any possible inequity measures to correct by Court and certified the Chief Clerk. compensation regime. the worker’s Negrón Justice concurring Garcia issued a conclusion, opinion. we answer the certified López Justice Rebollo dissents questions “statutory as follows: the em- judgment and states in the opin- that: “the ployer” apply doctrine does not in the con- by majority ion rendered of the Court in parent company text of a present owns all the ‘ques- case answer to certain subsidiary stock company of its when each tions’ by certified to us the United States legal identity Appeals has its own and between Court of First Circuit con- only cerning them there exists some license and application ‘statutory agreements. Regard- technical assistance employer’ par- doctrine in the context of a corporate less of the nature of the struc- ent-subsidiary relationship, is futile and in- ture, relationship the contractual between effective inasmuch as it up fails to draw companies determining ap- is crucial in guidelines clear legal that would aid the plication “statutory employer” doe- courts and the administrative officers con- Brief, Appellees agree. Appellants’ 10. at "principles reciprocity” require Brief, Plaintiffs-Appellees’ аt 2. recognize separate legal courts also identi- injured ties when sued worker. However, Boggs see Blue Diamond Coal Co., (6th Cir.1979), 590 F.2d 661-663 where answer, 12.In view of this there is no need to company's the Court held that once a owners question. answer the second separate corporations, divide certified the business into corporations, where
parent-subsidiary parent, owned subsidiary wholly Fur- type litigation. settle this cerned the activ- corporations bound and the by the thermore, law’ laid down ‘rule licensing case relevant ities *13 this field can be in majority of the Court so, 2) the determination agreement?; If by corpo- easily circumvented ‘flouted’ and to be made status statutory employer situations.” in similar involved rations agreement, or of the solely on the basis a written dissents without Ortiz Justice relation- the de may courts consider facto opinion. corporate based, example, on the ship, Agrait Liado. R. Francisco relation- parent-subsidiary of the structure Chief Clerk relation- nature of the ship economic or the GARCIA, concurring. (Underscore supplied.) NEGRON Certifica- ship?” JUSTICE tion, pp. 16-17. Rico, 21, Juan, March 1990 Puerto San below, we state reasons we shall For the situation we for the governing “The view negative. question in the the first answer should be detached considering (“Parke”) Davis & Co. Appellant Parke upon change depending may facts which immunity from employer not have does formulating in parties of the the cleverness its whol- brought by the workers of claims and relation juridical the the conditions Labs subsidiary, Parke Davis ly-owned the determination rather framed within ques- (“Labs”). Consequently, the second to the one in of the relation position the academic; ad- not we need becomes tion degree of special stress on the other with it. dress atten- dependence. Primordial economical II realities the economic paid should be tion technical classifications than rather clearly arises The factual framework of the in other areas might prevail which Comp. Pan certification. Ame. from the to a fair solution law, do not lead which 780, but Corp., 112 D.P.R. Corp. v. Data Gen. involved.” legislation is remedial when adju- and (1982). were heard The facts Velez, P.R.R. Nazario There- federal forum. before dicated opinion of the fore, shall we refer re- pronouncements these The breadth applicable focus on Let us then Court. on our attention us to focus quire law. the fairest way for pave the grounds that and letter harmony with the in
solution immunity employer recognize In order to Accident the Workmen’s spirit of original Accident by the Workmen’s provided as Act, keeping with Compensation Act, April No. Compensation society. of our industrial changing realities seq., we amended, et 11 L.P.R.A. § as concepts that crucial address two should I scope of aim the true and together reflect sum- requires a brief This legislation. applica- this action concerns present vis- employer scheme mary of the insured doctrine to employer statutory tion of sued party that a third rеlationship be- á-vis contractual particular the vul- we shall call damages, and which parent corpo- based a United States tween party. third subsidiary. nerable its local ration Accident The Workmen’s expressly ad- issue—not with this Faced through which system establishes a Act United before—the by this Court dressed compensa- entitled to injured worker First Cir- Appeals for the Court States identity of independently procedure cuit, through the certification tion— injury is when the 53.1(c) wrongdoer Rule Procedure laid down Civil —if remedi- exchange for this (4 Ill) Rule work-related. L.P.R.A., our (32 App. acquires immuni- scheme, employer I-A), to us the al L.P.R.A., App. certified policy by paying statutory ty from worker claims “1) Does questions: following premiums. context apply employer doctrine
employers that work in the project. same purpose provision The obvious then, (11 32) art. 31 L.P.R.A. rec- Now § permits complaints against third-party tort- party’s vulnerability the third ognized is that the feasors loss be suffered (11 damage And workers' suits. art. 19 injured tortfeasor and not worker or 20) employer L.P.R.A. defines who is the § Insurance State Fund.” obliged to insure his workers. This obli- gation only falls on the Thus, must conclude that the statu- regard employ- to his immediate and direct tory employer contemplated in the immuni- employer who as the ees, but covers that ty clause of the Workmen’s Accident Com- principal (statutory employer) enters who, pensation person ques- Act is the aas *14 agreement into an with a contractor with fact, tion of has insured his uninsured con- regard employees. key to the latter’s The employees. Only tractor’s thus can we see “subsidiary” obligation to this lies legal statutory relation that binds the insured, fact that if the contractor employer, employ- the contractors or direct employer required principal is not to insure worker, er’s and the State Insurance Fund. employees. the former’s Therefore, types we see that there two Hence, the determination of who is the statutory employers: an immune em- employer insured under the Workmen’s Ac- plоyer paying policy premiums of his Act, Compensation cident shall be effected another, employees, contractor’s and “1) light in the or not whether there is party, vulnerable third pays who no cov- insure; 2) obligation an and whether erage. position This was our in our dissent Fund, person actually covered Olefins, Vda. de Costas v. P.R. respect to the claimant worker.” (1978). D.P.R. 782 E.L.A., 402, v. (1981). F.S.E. 111 D.P.R. Only in the event that the contractor has Ill failed to insure his is that workers obliged statutory employer is to cover them Having briefly principles, outlined these statutory coverage. through the Other- apply present let us them to the case. statutory employer wise, if fails Labs, wholly-owned subsidiary workers, pro- cover these he mil not be Parke, is, purposes present of the ac- statutory immunity. tected As we tion, employer. a direct insured Hence, joined dissenting opinion held when we has the immunity absolute of the Work- in Lugo Sanchez former Justice Davila A.F.F., men’s Accident Act. 861, (1977), How- v. 105 D.P.R. “[t]his ever, paid pays Parke has not nor so, being why we see no reason the immu- statutory premiums employees. Labs’ nity granted by statutory the law to the when, evidently places position This employer Parke should be extended on ac- party. vulnerable third of a negligence, employee count of Even if it his of a statutory employer is, employer injuries. contractual sustains could be a one We —that forget parties employs through cannot the third who who workers others1 —it greater security offer the risk to the of the is an uncontested fact that did not Parke employees statutory are the workers insure Labs’s workers hence it was not (which employer pays aging carry logo, 1. Since Labs is an insured who would Parke’s not premiums, Labs’); 4) its worker's sary we do not deem it neces- from the Labs’ full stock outset. the issue of whether to settle or not Parke was sold to Parke even when it "could” sell its statutory light legal is a in the product elsewhere. Labs, 1) prior relations between it and to wit: pronouncing We shall likewise refrain from 1970, produced contraceptives Parke the oral legal on ourselves the effects the Parke-Labs divisions; then, 2) since one of its Labs is the identity "single employer would have on the manufacturer; 3) production all of Labs’ is au- gained acceptance by doctrine” that has this Parke, thorized since the latter allowed Labs See, Court in the labor relations field. J.R.T. v. patents, permits to use its certificates federal I, Playa (1986); Asoc. C. 117 D.P.R. to handle and use the raw material Azul involved in production, designing Corp., plant v. S. Cosmetic Dist. aside from Odriozola operations, quality pack- control standards and D.P.R. 496-497 n. 5 ADAMS, al., Gerry et immu- mantle of protective by “the covered Plaintiffs, Appellants, Sanchez, at 872. supra, Lugo nity.” IV State; BAKER, Secretary of Rich James today, by the Court opinion rendered General; Attorney Thornburgh, ard very result, leaves in its although correct Nelson, Director of the and Alan C. Simple interpretation. avenue for broad Immigration Ser and Naturalization agreements contractual formalities Defendants, vice, Appellees . immu- absurdity that the lead to could does person who granted nity No. 89-1903. legal has “the mutual just he pay, because Appeals, United States Court em- insure” contractor’s obligation to his First Circuit. of this obli- expectation
ployees. The mere should avoid enough. We gation is not Heard Feb. extensions law effects case prejudicial July Decided Accident by the Workmen’s not foreseen *15 have on the work- Act could rights. ers’ reasons, we concur. foregoing
For CERTIFICATE CLERK’S
CHIEF Liado, Clerk
I, Agrait R. Chief Francisco Rico, DO of Puerto Supreme Court CERTIFY:
HEREBY photo- ais the annexed document
That Span- official
copy of the translation having (said English
ish into translation authority of Act No. made under
been 1972) opinion rendered May
87 of 21, 1990, in Case on March
by this Court CT-88-615, Hodge, Santiago
No. Mercedes al., origi- al., Davis et v. Parke Co.
et my under custo- Spanish
nal of which concurring opinion
dy in this Office. Negron is attached
of Mr. Justice Garcia
hereto. WHEREOF, and at the WITNESS
IN party, I issue of the interested
request fee-free, use, presents official
these of this Court my hand and seal
under Rico, day of Juan, this 27th Puerto
San
April 1990. Agrait Liado Francisco R.
/S/ Agrait Liado
Francisco R.
Chief Clerk Rico of Puerto
Supreme Court notes after these were written. two hours nothing to do with of tort law and has tion poll proceeded then to The district court com employer immunity under workmen’s jury. During proceedings these Thus, the issue to pensation.” Id. at 907. read ordered verdict to be district court the individuals determined is whether jury pay: and instructed the to aloud re personally involved or question were they’re to the verdicts close attention as injuries. also sponsible for the See Santi published and read aloud gоing to be Dickinson, F.Supp. 571 904 ago v. Becton .of following publication And open court. minds (D.P.R.1983). Because reasonable verdict, That jury polled. will be the officers on the extent of could differ individually asked juror is each will be question is negligence, this participation published as consti- whether the verdict the trier of fact. should be left to one that be, her, case his or as the tute Seaman, [sic] 821 F.2d 876 Springer v. Cf. individual verdict. (1st Cir.1987)(“if persons might reasonable differ, legal issue is determined cause Thereafter, every ju- each and one of factfinder.”) (quoting v. by the individually queried as to their rors was Leboeuf (D.Mass. F.Supp. Ramsey, All ex- concurrence with the verdict. 1980), v. grounds, rev’d on other Costa chal- agreement. Appellants pressed their (1st Cir.1982)). F.2d 158 Markey, 677 procedure. lenge adequacy of this appel support their contention judg a To reviewing the denial of verdict, in which lants cite criminal cases1 notwithstanding the this various ment 31(d) of Criminal right jury polls Rule of the Federal Rules has been codified in 1. The to 1982). that, the district court’s fоr their We find trial have been reversed courts scope of jurors. polling was within the polling actions in United States individual (1st Cir.1984); Luciano, F.2d its discretion. (5th States, F.2d 876 Sincox v. United Cir.1978). inapposite of these are All III. TIME BARRED CLAIMS These are present circumstances. appellees were Appellants allege that linger- juror expressed cases in which injuries and the cause of aware of their during polling, not- ing or after the doubt prior filing injuries years several those which, judge persisted withstanding suit; applicable statute of limita- thus the poll- treating juror’s answer as to the They contend tions their claims. barred to an- ing unqualified, as hastened a matter of law the statute of that as Luciano, the vote. In nounce a unanimous triggered the moment that limitations was judge’s error was court concluded that injuries plaintiffs had the idea that their juror “the and counsel that he dominated related, and, therefore, the dis- if he a were work fully much as raced record as denying appellants re- verdict, effectually foreclosing any oppor- trict court erred in tunity poll jurors.” quest Summary Judgment United States v. and its mo- Luciano, disagree 734 F.2d at We tion for directed verdict.