In James v Crystal Springs Water, the Appellate Division, Second Department unanimously affirmed a lower court ruling granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  In James, plaintiff was allegedly injured in an accident that occurred while working at the premises owned by defendant, Crystal Springs Water.  He was employed by nonparty Manpower Group US, Inc. and received workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to a Manpower insurance policy.  Plaintiff sued Crystal Springs to recover damages for personal injuries.

The Court affirmed that an employee who is entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits may not sue his or her employer based on injuries sustained by the employee, and, for the purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law, a person may be deemed to have more than one employer.  Citing Pena v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., the Court stated, “The receipt of Workers’ Compensation benefits from a general employer precludes an employee from commencing a negligence action against a special employer.”

While a person’s categorization as a special employee is usually a question of fact, a determination of special employee status may be made as a matter of law where undisputed critical facts compel that conclusion and present to triable issue of fact.  While no single factor is decisive, principal factors include who has the right to control the employee’s work, who is responsible for the payment of wages and furnishing of equipment, who has the right to discharge the employee, and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer’s or the general employer’s business.  Citing to Munion v. Trustees of Columbia University, the Court found that the most significant factor is who controls and directs the manner, details, and ultimate result of the employee’s work.

Crystal Springs established that it controlled and directed the manner, details and ultimate result of plaintiff’s work.  Plaintiff submitted an affidavit asserting that he received no supervision from Crystal Springs which the Court found to be insufficient to raise an issue of fact as it contradicted his own deposition testimony.  The workers’ compensation law is a complete bar to a plaintiff’s ability to sue his or her employer and the special employee doctrine allows special employers to be cloaked under the same veil of immunity.  Thanks to Mehreen Hayat for her contribution to this post.  With an y questions, please email Brian Gibbons.