Joint Special Employer: Dual Liability

The complex issue of employment status, specifically whether an individual can be considered a "joint special employer" in the context of workers' compensation was the subject of a recent court ruling. The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, examined the case of Joseph Vola, a police officer injured while on an extra traffic duty assignment for Asplundh Tree Experts, arranged through the City of Northfield.

Who Decides if an Employee is a Borrowed-Employee

The adjudication of workers’ compensation claims involves one final arbitrator of fact and law, a compensation judge. In a civil action, a judge decides the applicable law, and the jury decides the factual issues. The NJ Supreme Court recently reiterated the jury’s role in the process when it reviewed a matter determining the status of a borrowed employee.

Employment Status Not Dependent on Exercising the Right to Control

Who an employee works for is determined by whether an employer may control the employee and not the exercise of the right. A NJ Appellate Court ruled in a dual employment issue that employment status is not dispositive by a single factor and that right to control an employee can be shared which establishes a dual employment situation.

Forklift Operator Not A “Special Employee”

 Special equipment operators often appear to work for two employers simultaneously. The facade of dual employment may not meet the criteria for being a shared employee or “special employee.”

The Going and Coming Rule: Parking Lot Injury Held Not Compensable

A NJ appellate court ruled that an employee who was severely injured in a parking lot as a result of a slip and fall was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits since the injury occurred “off the premises” and the employer did not control the employee’s parking.

The Court also ruled, that even though a separate corporation that owned the parking lot, the corporate veil could not be pierced in absence of the proof of fraud by the employer. The employer merely rented the store premises and not the parking lot. 

Cottone v Medical Supply Corp. and NJ Manufacturers (Intervener) 
2013 WL 1136114 (N.J.Super.A.D.) Decided March 20, 2013