 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Parsley v. Rickey6/2/1998
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM CERTIFIED INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE GORDON MELSON, DISTRICT JUDGE
The trial Judge, in non-jury trial on issue of liability only, determined that the defendant Bill Rickey was liable to the plaintiff, an employee of an independent contractor, for failure as "principal employer" to provide workers' compensation insurance for the plaintiff. The trial judge certified the judgment for immediate interlocutory review pursuant to 12 O.S. Section 952(b)(3) and this Court granted certiorari. We find that, applying the test set out by this Court in Bradley v. Clark, 1990 OK 73, 804 P.2d 425, there was no competent evidence that Mr. Rickey was a "principal employer" under Title 85 O.S. Supp. 1996 Section 11. The stay entered by this Court on January 13, 1997, is dissolved.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
We granted certiorari to review a certified interlocutory order from the district court of Seminole county, rendered after a non-jury trial in which the court found the defendant Bill Rickey liable to plaintiff for failure to provide workers' compensation insurance as "principal employer" under section 11 of the Workers' Compensation Act. The issue is whether the trial Judge's order finding the defendant secondarily liable was supported by competent evidence. In short, we must determine whether the defendant Bill Rickey was the principal employer of either the injured worker or the independent contractor. Applying the test set out in Bradley v. Clark, 1990 OK 73, 804 P.2d 425, we find that there was no evidence that Mr. Rickey was the principal employer of either the independent contractor or the independent contractor's employee.
The facts are not disputed. The defendant Bill Rickey is engaged in the business of feeding and raising hogs for Tyson Foods. Mr. Rickey hired Cody's Construction Company, an Arkansas entity, to build the hog barns to the specifications required by Tyson's. Cody's Construction Company had been engaged in several building projects on Tyson's behalf. The plaintiff, Rodney Parsley, worked for Cody's Construction Company and was injured on the barn-building project on Mr. Rickey's land. Cody's Construction Company did not have workers' compensation insurance, so the plaintiff sued Cody's and Cody's owners, Larry and Patsy Havins, in district court under 85 O.S. 1991 Section 12, which provides that if an employer has failed to secure the payment of compensation for an injured employee, the injured employee may maintain an action in the courts for damages on account of such injury. The plaintiff obtained default judgment against Patsy Havins on January 21, 1994 on the basis that, as the plaintiff's employer, she had failed to carry workers' compensation insurance covering him.
The plaintiff amended his petition on March 9, 1994, to add Bill Rickey as a defendant, alleging that Rickey, as the owner of the property upon which the other defendants had contracted to work, was required to have worker 's compensation insurance on all employees of his contractor and sub-contractor and that he failed to do so. The plaintiff sought damages in excess of $100,00, plus attorney fees and costs. The plaintiff made no allegations of negligence on the part of Mr. Rickey.
The defendant Rickey answered, denying that the plaintiff was hired by him and denying that the plaintiff ever was an employee of his. Rickey denied that he was required by law to carry workers' compensation insurance because he
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|