Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bergeron v. Cajun Cutters, Inc.
Citations: 879 So. 2d 230; 2004 La. App. LEXIS 1251; 2004 WL 1077993Docket: No. 2003 CA 1370
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 14, 2004; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Employer Cajun Cutters and its insurer, Gray Insurance Company, appealed a judgment that granted summary judgment, concluding that Ace Transportation Company was not a joint employer of James Bergeron, the injured worker. Bergeron, hired by Cajun Cutters as a driver, was also employed by Ace after meeting its hiring requirements. He was compensated by Ace for specific runs, while Cajun Cutters provided him with consistent employment as a helper during downtimes. Following an injury sustained while working for Cajun Cutters, Bergeron's workers' compensation benefits were terminated based on a finding that he was earning '90% or more' of his pre-injury wage. He claimed that his average weekly wage should include earnings from both employers, leading Cajun Cutters to file a third-party demand against Ace for contribution, asserting joint employer status. Ace successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing Bergeron was solely employed by Cajun Cutters at the time of the accident. The workers’ compensation judge dismissed the demand against Ace, prompting the appeal. The court emphasized that the primary issue was whether Ace and Cajun Cutters were joint employers under Louisiana Workers’ Compensation law, specifically La. R.S. 23:1031 B, which dictates that multiple employers may share liability for compensation payments if an employee is jointly employed at the time of injury. The court noted that statutory interpretation should start with the text of the law itself, reflecting the legislature's intent. The interpretation of laws requires a comprehensive examination of the law in question, its context, and the intent of the lawmaker. According to established statutes and case law, for a worker to qualify for workers’ compensation benefits, the injury must arise from their employment at the time of the accident. In reviewing La. R.S. 23:1031 B alongside other workers’ compensation laws, it is determined that an employer is only jointly liable for compensation if the injury occurred while the employee was performing paid duties for them. This interpretation aligns with the rulings from other circuits and does not necessitate analysis of jurisprudential issues like "amount/degree of control" or "common enterprise." In this case, the employee, Bergeron, was only compensated by Cajun Cutters at the time of his injury, which arose out of that employment. His status as an employee of Ace Transportation, Inc. is irrelevant since the injury did not occur while performing duties for Ace. Consequently, the workers’ compensation judge's dismissal of the claim against Ace is upheld. Appeal costs are assigned to Cajun Cutters, Inc. and the Gray Insurance Company. The judgment is affirmed with concurrence from Judge Kuhn, noting that the truck used was available at the Cajun Cutters work yard and utilized for their business.