 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
HARRELL v. PINELAND PLANTATION12/8/1997
., 296 S.C. 241, 371 S.E.2d 796 (1988). Pineland employed Isaac Middleton and Lucrisher Smith directly. Middleton worked approximately forty hours per week performing yard work and assisting with sporting clays, and Pineland paid Middleton through an account administered by Land Management. Smith worked one day per week on a set schedule cleaning the house and assisting with cooking, and she was also paid through an account administered by Land Management. Harrell himself constitutes a third Pineland employee.
Harrell, however, argues Robert Folk, general partner of Land Management, is an independent contractor and cannot be counted as a Pineland employee. Folk's status, however, need not be determined. This is because Lisa Hiers, a direct employee of Land Management, regularly performed bookkeeping for Pineland, which was a "necessary, essential, and integral part" of Pineland's business. Riden, 313 S.C. at 263, 437 S.E.2d at 157-58. I would find, therefore, that Pineland regularly employed at least four employees at the time of Harrell's injury .
III.
By seeking workers compensation, Harrell properly pursued the remedy provided by the Act. His pursuit of workers' compensation resulted in a settlement approved by the Workers' Compensation Commission. Once the commission approved the settlement, Harrell's successful compensation claim operated to bar any alternative remedy, including the bringing of a damage claim against Pineland, his statutory employer. See 82 Am.Jur.2d Workers' Compensation ยง 108, at 107 (1992); see also Parker, 275 S.C. at 65, 267 S.E.2d at 528 (holding statutory employer immune from suit by employee regardless of the fact that the statutory employer did not pay the workers' compensation benefits provided to employee); Bell v. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co., 234 S.C. 577, 582, 109 S.E.2d 441, 443 (1959) (holding " he plaintiff, having collected from the contractor . . . doing the work for the owner, . . . which was part of its business, trade or occupation, is barred from bringing a common-law action against the statutory employer and the plaintiff cannot recover from both and recovery under the Compensation Act bars a recovery or action at common law"); Neese, 324 S.C. at 472, 478 S.E.2d at 94 (stating "a statutory employee['s] sole remedy for work-related injuries is to seek relief under the Workers' Compensation Act"); cf. Llewellyn v. Smith, 593 P.2d 771 (Okla. 1979)
(holding even though an employee's immediate employer failed to secure compensation as required under the workers' compensation act, when the employee successfully pursued a workers' compensation claim against his principal employer, the employee made an election of remedies and, therefore, could not pursue a common-law negligence action against his immediate employer and court was without jurisdiction to consider the common-law negligence action).
I would affirm.
GOOLSBY, Judge, dissenting:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|