Interstate Industrial Park v. Afterdeck Restaurant
Docket: No. BF-486
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 7, 1985; Florida; State Appellate Court
A dispute arose between two employers, Interstate Industrial Park and Aft-erdeck Restaurant, regarding the payment of workers' compensation benefits to their employee, James Barber. The deputy commissioner ruled that Aft-erdeck and its insurer, State Farm, were released from liability, assigning responsibility for benefits to Interstate and its insurer, Travelers Insurance. Barber, a carpenter earning $8.00 per hour, was injured while working at Interstate and temporarily assisting at Afterdeck. He was paid by Interstate for travel and work related to a prior job at Afterdeck, where he had been involved in disassembling a pizza oven. Following his injury, Barber received a check from Afterdeck for his services, which Edward Davis claimed was for previous work, though the check indicated it was for the accident date. There was ambiguity regarding whether Interstate compensated Barber for his time at Afterdeck on the injury date. Afterdeck contended that Barber was either not their employee or a casual employee, while Interstate claimed he was a loaned employee. The deputy concluded that Barber was employed by both but not a 'dual employee' due to the brief nature of his work for Afterdeck, categorizing him as a 'casual employee' there. The ruling dismissed claims against Afterdeck and confirmed Interstate's liability for benefits. The appellate body agreed that Barber was an employee of Interstate and that Interstate was liable for benefits, but disagreed with the deputy's classification of Barber as an employee of Afterdeck.
Claimant was exclusively an employee of Interstate and not of Afterdeck. The case involves the 'loaned employee' or 'borrowed servant' doctrine, which dictates that a special employer is liable for workers’ compensation only if: a) there is an express or implied contract of hire with the special employer; b) the work performed is essentially for the special employer; and c) the special employer has the right to control the work details. The critical inquiry is whether a contract of hire exists with the special employer; without a 'yes' answer, further analysis is unnecessary.
The Supreme Court case Shelby Mutual Insurance Company v. Aetna Insurance Company is cited as relevant. In Shelby, a worker who was originally employed by T. R Farms was injured while performing a task for T. R Packing without a contract to substitute his employment, leading to the conclusion that T. R Packing was responsible for death benefits. Similarly, the claimant here had no contract, express or implied, with Afterdeck, affirming that Interstate and its insurer are liable for benefits.
The deputy's reasoning labeling the claimant as not a 'dual employee' is affirmed, as dual employment requires contracts with both employers. Dual employment involves one employee under contracts with two employers, performing separate services for each, where liability for workers’ compensation may be shared based on the nature of the injury-related activities. Since the claimant had no contract with Afterdeck, he cannot be classified as a 'casual employee,' as defined in Section 440.02(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1981), which excludes casual employment not related to the employer's trade or business.
Section 440.02(3) of the Florida Statutes (1981) defines "casual" employment as work expected to be completed within ten working days, with total labor costs under $100, and is concerned with coverage under workers’ compensation law. This case does not question whether the claimant’s employment falls under workers’ compensation; it is clear that it does. Instead, the focus is on determining who is liable for benefit payments. The case does not warrant discussion of the 'casual employee' doctrine, nor the interpretation of 'course of business' in Section 440.02(2)(d). The deputy's order is affirmed. The case contrasts with the Shelby case, particularly because the claimant received a payment from Afterdeck shortly after the accident, which is interpreted as a self-protective act rather than evidence of a genuine employer-employee relationship.
