 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Marshall v. Squire Court Limited Partnership12/14/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant Ormond Marshall brings this appeal from a decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) that found that he was "jointly employed" by Carson Equities and Squire Court Limited Partnership. On appeal, appellants assert that the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
Squire Partners, Incorporated is the general partner of Squire Court Limited Partnership (SCLP). Both entities are operated by Henry "Hank" Mann and his son, Michael Mann. SCLP owned Squire Court One and Squire Court Two apartment complexes in Little Rock. The complexes were managed by Carolyn Hornbeck, an employee of SCLP. A renovation project was undertaken at the two complexes. Carson Equities, a company owned by Michael Mann and his two sisters, was hired to perform the renovations.
Appellant Ormand Marshall was hired by Henry Mann to work for Carson Equities. As part of his employment, Marshall laid the flooring for the renovation project. While working on the renovation project, Marshall lived rent free in an apartment at Squire Court in exchange for his painting and placing flooring in the apartment. At the request of Ms. Hornbeck, Marshall also performed general repairs around the complex.
On May 28, 1998, while working on an apartment in the Squire Court Two Complex, Marshall's foot was injured when a concrete-stairway landing collapsed while a co-worker, Nigel Merez, was standing on it.
Marshall and Mr. Merez both brought suit in the Pulaski County Circuit Court against SCLP. They alleged that SCLP was independently negligent and/or that SCLP maintained such control over the renovation project as to be liable for the negligence of its subcontractors. In its answer, SCLP admitted that Marshall was an employee of Carson Equities and denied all other allegations. Following discovery, SCLP moved for summary judgment, arguing that Carson Equities was an independent contractor and that SCLP had no duties toward Carson Equities' employees. The trial court granted SCLP's motion for summary judgment.
An appeal of the trial court's decision was brought before our court. In Merez v. Squire Court Ltd. Partnership, CA02-82 (Ark. App. Oct. 2, 2002) (Merez I), we concluded sua sponte that, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11-9-105(a) (Repl. 2002), the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the complaint, and we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This decision was based upon the conclusion that SCLP was the prime contractor on the renovation project. See Merez I, supra. However, upon petition for rehearing, relying on Stapleton v. M.D. Limbaugh Construction Co., 333 Ark. 381, 969 S.W.2d 648 (1998), we vacated our previous decision and issued a substituted opinion reversing and remanding the order granting summary judgment on the ground that there were material questions of fact remaining unanswered. See Merez v. Squire Court Ltd. P'ship, CA02-82 (Ark. App. Dec. 18, 2002) (Merez II). A petition for review was filed in the Arkansas Supreme Court. The supreme court granted the petition for review, and in Merez v. Squire Court Ltd. Partnership, 353 Ark. 174, 114 S.W.3d 184 (2003) (Merez III), the supreme court concluded that this court's decision in Merez I was correct and thereby reversed and remanded the case because the Commission had exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine the facts that establish jurisdiction.
Thereafter, Marshall filed a claim before the Commission. Instead of a formal hearing, the parties stipulated that the record would be comprised of the depositions, documents, and
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|