Uninsured Employers’ Fund v. Tyson Farms, Inc., et. al.
Case No. 1057, September Term, 2018
Opinion by J. Wright
On April 15, 2015, Mauro Jiminez Garcia (“Garcia”) suffered an occupational disease to his lungs arising out of his work raising chickens on a farm owned by Dai K. Nguyen (“Nguyen”). The chickens on Nguyen’s farm were raised for, and owned by, Tyson Farms, Inc. (“Tyson”). Garcia filed a Maryland Workers’ Compensation claim against Nguyen. Nguyen did not have workers’ compensation insurance; therefore, The Uninsured Employers’ Fund (“UEF”) became a party to the case. Garcia and UEF then impleaded Tyson into the claim. After a hearing on March 3, 2016, the Workers’ Compensation Commission declared that Garcia’s injuries arose out of the course of his employment, and that both Nguyen and Tyson were co-employers of Garcia at the time of his injuries.
Tyson appealed the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision to the Circuit Court for Worcester County. After the presentation of evidence at the jury trial, UEF and Tyson moved for judgment. The circuit court denied both motions. The jury returned a verdict finding that Tyson was not a co-employer at the time of Mr. Garcia’s injuries. UEF appealed the matter to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals to determine whether the circuit court erred in denying UEF’s motion for judgment.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals determined that the circuit court erred in denying UEF’s motion for judgment, and further determined Tyson and Nguyen were co-employers of Garcia. In coming to their decision, the Court of Special Appeals looked toward the five factors which determine whether an employer-employee relationship existed, as outlined by the Maryland Court of Appeals: (1) the power to select and hire the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to discharge; (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct; and (5) whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer.[1] Of those five factors, “control” is the most important. In fact, whether the employer has the right to control and direct the employee in the performance of the work and in the manner in which the work is to be done, is the determinative test.[2]
In this particular case, Tyson representatives taught Mr. Garcia how to operate the chicken farm. Tyson employees came to the farm between two and four times per week in order to teach Garcia how to maintain the farm and raise the chicken. Garcia assumed the day-to-day responsibility for the chickens, and Garcia, per Tyson’s requirements, resided at the farm 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, to ensure proper operation of the farm. Since Garcia resided at the farm, Tyson spoke directly to Garcia if Tyson required any changes to be made. Garcia was responsible for making all changes.
Tyson and Nguyen entered into a Broiler Production Contract, which required Tyson to retain ownership to chickens, feed, and medication, and provide veterinary services and technical advice. The contract further required Nguyen to furnish labor, materials, and utilities necessary for raising chickens, and when necessary, seek Tyson’s technical advice. Nguyen further had to maintain bio-secure housing for the chickens, and implement Tyson’s recommended best animal management practices. The contract further provided Tyson the unilateral right to terminate the relationship should Nguyen fail the comply with the Contract. Tyson also placed signs at the farm bearing the Tyson logo.
Given the extensive amount of control Tyson exercised over Garcia’s work, the Court of Special Appeals determined that there was more than sufficient information to establish an employment relationship as a matter of law. Therefore, the Circuit Court erred in denying UEF’s motion for judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment