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. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT