ILNews

Worker’s Compensation Act is only remedy for injured employee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A construction worker injured on a job site will have to find remedy through the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act after the Indiana Court of Appeals denied his attempt to sue a subcontractor.

Donovan Johnson was hurt when part of a wooden block form broke loose while being lifted by a crane and struck him. He was working at a construction site in West Lafayette as an employee of R.L. Turner, the general contractor.

The crane operations were provided by Poindexter Transport, Inc. and Crane Service which had hired by R.L. Turner especially for the project.

Johnson and his wife filed a suit against Poindexter alleging negligent acts and loss of consortium.

Poindexter responded with a motion to dismiss. It asserted the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Johnson and the crane operator, David Creel, were co-employees. As a result, the Johnsons only had the option of pursuing a claim for benefits under the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act since an employer-employee relationship existed between R.L. Turner and Creel.

The trial court agreed and granted Poindexter’s motion to dismiss.

In Donovan Johnson and Aileen Johnson v. Poindexter Transport, Inc. and Crane Service, 49A02-1212-CT-1027, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding Creel was a borrowed employee.

The COA reviewed the appeal using the seven factors identified in Hale v. Kemp, 579 N.E.2d 63, 67 (Ind. 1991). Factors weighing in favor of Poindexter’s argument were R.L. Turner had the right to terminate Creel from the job and determined the hours he worked; Creel was supervised by R.L. Turner employees; and the general contactor had constructed the forms, and the equipment used for lifting the structures.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT