 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roads West12/19/2003
was relieved from liability by 85 O.S.2001 §11(B)(1) and (2) because it was a principal employer who relied on a certificate of insurance provided by a subcontractor, (2) TTC, not Employer, was Claimant's employer pursuant to the Oklahoma Professional Employee Organization Recognition and Registration Act (PEO Act), 40 O.S.Supp.2002 §600.7(E), and (3) the trial court erred in sua sponte dismissing TTC.
The Service Agreement between Employer and TTC provided,
Each party hereto shall have direction and control of the employees covered hereby to the extent necessary to fulfill its obligations hereunder and to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. However, T.T.C. shall not have direction and control sufficient to render it the master or principal of any employee covered hereby for master-servant/principal-agent liability.
This contract creates a coemployment relationship as defined by the PEO Act, §600.2(3)(a). The effective date of the PEO Act was November 1, 2002, after the date of Claimant's injury. Laws 2002, c. 64, §2. A compensation claim is controlled by the laws in existence at the time of injury and not by laws enacted thereafter. Knott v. Halliburton Services, 1988 OK 29, 752 P.2d 812, 813. However, we reach the same result whether we apply the PEO Act or not. Under the parties' contract, both Employer and TTC have the status of Claimant's employer for workers' compensation purposes. Pursuant to the PEO Act, both parties are considered the employer for the purpose of coverage under the Workers' Compensation Act. §600.7(E).
Because Employer and TTC have the relationship of coemployers and not that of principal and independent contractor, Employer is not entitled to the protections of 85 O.S.2001 §11(B)(1) and (2). Employer is responsible for Claimant's workers' compensation benefits independently of TTC. The trial court did not err in finding Employer was Claimant's employer, but it did err as a matter of law in ruling TTC was not Claimant's employer under the service agreement. Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing TTC without prejudice. In the event the bankruptcy stay is lifted, the parties may pursue claims against TTC. Even if the stay is not lifted, the Workers' Compensation Court may decide claims against TTC's insurers. 85 O.S.2001 §64(c).
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the three-judge panel affirming the order of the trial court is VACATED to the extent it (1) dismissed CNA, Regency, and TTC as parties, (2) held CNA not estopped to deny excess coverage, (3) held Regency's policy was limited to Illinois clerical workers and did not cover Claimant, and (4) held TTC was not Claimant's employer. The panel's order is SUSTAINED in all other respects and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JONES, J., and MITCHELL, P.J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|