MOHAMUD HIRSI MOHAMED v. TAXI USA OF TENNESSEE, LLC d/b/a ALLIED CAR COMPANY ET AL. (TWCA February 10, 2012)
In this case, the plaintiff, a taxi driver injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought workers' compensation benefits from the taxi company that he alleged employed him. The trial court held that he was an independent contractor and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2012/mohamedm_021012.pdf
Tennessee Personal Injury Law Blog - published by Bryan L. Capps and Stephen A. Burroughs. The Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs – proudly serving clients throughout East Tennessee.
Showing posts with label Independent Contractor or Employee?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Independent Contractor or Employee?. Show all posts
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Court reviews whether plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor, and an award for punitive damages
JEFFREY L. DILLON v. NICA, INC., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 15, 2011)
After his claim for insurance benefits for an injury sustained while making a delivery was denied, plaintiff filed suit against the delivery company, the company providing the insurance coverage and its president, and the third party administrator of the insurance plan, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and conspiracy to evade the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The jury found the company providing the insurance and its president liable for violation of the Consumer Protection Act and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
On appeal, the insurance company and president contend that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff was an employee of delivery company rather than an independent contractor, in excluding various exhibits and testimony, in denying the president's motion for a directed verdict, and in awarding punitive damages. Because the punitive damage awarded was predicated on the violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, which does not authorize an award of punitive damages, the award of punitive damages is vacated and the case remanded for a determination of whether an award of treble damages under the Consumer Protection Act should be awarded. In all other respects, the judgment and rulings are affirmed.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/dillonj_121511.pdf
After his claim for insurance benefits for an injury sustained while making a delivery was denied, plaintiff filed suit against the delivery company, the company providing the insurance coverage and its president, and the third party administrator of the insurance plan, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and conspiracy to evade the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The jury found the company providing the insurance and its president liable for violation of the Consumer Protection Act and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
On appeal, the insurance company and president contend that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff was an employee of delivery company rather than an independent contractor, in excluding various exhibits and testimony, in denying the president's motion for a directed verdict, and in awarding punitive damages. Because the punitive damage awarded was predicated on the violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, which does not authorize an award of punitive damages, the award of punitive damages is vacated and the case remanded for a determination of whether an award of treble damages under the Consumer Protection Act should be awarded. In all other respects, the judgment and rulings are affirmed.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/dillonj_121511.pdf
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
TWCA reviews whether plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor for the purposes of a workers' compensation suit
GLORIA KAZELESKI v. DIXIE MOTORS, INC. (TWCA February 10, 2010)
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff, Gloria Kazeleski, was involved in an automobile accident, and sought workers' compensation benefits from defendant Dixie Motors, Inc. Dixie Motors contended that she was not its employee, but an independent contractor. The trial court ruled that she was an employee, and awarded benefits, including 100% permanent disability of the left arm. The defendant has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that plaintiff was its employee. We conclude that she was an independent contractor, and reverse the judgment.
Full opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/kazeleskig_021010.pdf
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff, Gloria Kazeleski, was involved in an automobile accident, and sought workers' compensation benefits from defendant Dixie Motors, Inc. Dixie Motors contended that she was not its employee, but an independent contractor. The trial court ruled that she was an employee, and awarded benefits, including 100% permanent disability of the left arm. The defendant has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that plaintiff was its employee. We conclude that she was an independent contractor, and reverse the judgment.
Full opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/kazeleskig_021010.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)