Hugh Dancy Co. v. Mooneyham
| Docket Number: | 2010-WC-00439-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-WC-00439-COA ; 2010-CT-00439-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-15-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers' compensation - Employee status - Section 71-3-3 - Contract of hire Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-21-2010 Appealed from: DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN Disposition: AFFIRMED COMMISSION’S FINDING THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE WHO SUSTAINED A WORK-RELATED INJURY Case Number: CV2009-0080CD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Hugh Dancy Company, Inc. and Valley Forge Insurance Company |
JOHN LEWIS HINKLE IV |
||
| Appellee: | Thurman Mooneyham | MICHAEL WAYNE DARBY JR. |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Workers' compensation - Employee status - Section 71-3-3 - Contract of hire |
| Summary of the Facts: | Thurman Mooneyham suffered an injury while on the premises of Hugh Dancy Company, Inc. Mooneyham filed a claim to receive workers’ compensation, alleging that he had sustained a work-related injury. The Administrative Judge found that Mooneyham worked as an employee of Dancy and had sustained a work-related injury. Dancy and Valley Forge Insurance Company, the insurance carrier, appealed to the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission, which affirmed the order of the AJ. Dancy and Valley Forge then appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Dancy and Valley Forge appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Dancy and Valley Forge argue that Mooneyham failed to possess employee status at the time of injury; thus, he fails to fall within the scope of coverage for workers’ compensation benefits. Alternatively, they argue that even if the Court finds an employment relationship to exist, Mooneyham worked for Dancy as an independent contractor, and his avenue for recovery lies in an independent tort action. Section 71-3-3 defines the term “employee” as any person in the service of an employer under any contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied, provided that there shall be excluded therefrom all independent contractors. A contract of hire is required to meet the definition of “employee” as defined in the statute. The elements required of a contract of hire include mutual consent, consideration, and the right of control. In this case, the record demonstrates that substantial evidence exists to meet the elements of a contract of hire. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
