|
Appellant was a statutory employee of Defendant and therefore his exclusive remedy was in Workers’ Compensation. The Circuit Court properly dismissed Appellant’s negligence lawsuit against his statutory employer.
Posey was a truck driver for Tiger Transport Service, Inc (Tiger). PME/Autegra, the defendant, manufactures plastic products for the automobile industry and repairs plastic molds. When PME/Autegra doesn’t have enough truck drivers to carry on their business, they contract with other carriers to supplement their transportation services. In this case, PME/Autegra contracted with Tiger to provide supplemental transportation. Posey was the driver of the Tiger truck that was sent to work with PME/Autegra. Posey picked up two plastic molds and took them to PME/Autegra for repair. During the unloading process, a hook attached to a crane came loose and struck Posey in the head, injuring him.
Posey was granted Workers’ Compensation benefits from Tiger. Posey subsequently sued PME/Autegra for negligence. The Circuit Court dismissed Posey’s negligence action, finding that Posey was a statutory employee of PME/Autegra and his exclusive remedy was in Workers’ Compensation.
S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-410, under some circumstances, imposes liability on an employer or contractor for the payment of compensation benefits to a worker not directly employed by the contractor. Here, Posey was employed by Tiger, not PME/Autegra. However, the Circuit Court found that Posey was a statutory employee of PME/Autegra because the identical activity was previously performed by PME/Autegra’s employees. PME/Autegra’s use of Tiger and Posey was only in supplement to its own drivers. Posey, at the time of his injury, was doing the exact work that is routinely performed by PME/Autegra’s employees, and was thus a statutory employee of PME/Autegra. Posey’s remedy was in Workers’ Compensation, not a tort action.
Posey also argued that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing his negligence action because the Circuit Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that whether or not an employee-employer relationship exists is a jurisdictional question. Because Posey was found to be a statutory employee of PME/Autegra, his exclusive remedy was in Workers’ Compensation and the Workers’ Compensation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, the Circuit Court properly dismissed Posey’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
