قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Military contractor must prove worker was employed to avoid lawsuit

Military contractor must prove worker was employed to avoid lawsuit



A Texas appeals court ruled Wednesday that a military contractor must prove a worker was an employee to avoid a “substantial jury award” for negligence stemming from a 2016 workplace accident.

Addison, Texas-based King Aerospace, hired by the U.S. Army to maintain aircraft, was sued by Jorge Hernandez, who fell from a ladder while painting the wing of a plane and was seriously injured. The negligence suit, which King fought, stating that it was the employer, a subscriber to the Texas workers’ compensation system, and thus immune from suit under the exclusive due process clause of labor law, resulted in a jury award of “over one million dollars,” according to Jorge L. Hernandez. v. King Aerospace, filed in the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, El Paso.

King is contracted by the US Army to service aircraft at Fort Bliss Army Base. While King directly hires many of its own permanent employees, additional skilled people are often required on a temporary basis, including aircraft maintenance specialists. King often relies on Aircraft Technologies Group, which has trained and experienced maintenance specialists. Hernandez was an ATG employee who had been selected by King to work on several projects beginning in 201

3, according to the ruling.

A jury trial found that Hernandez was not an employee of King and, despite this finding, a trial court ultimately concluded that Hernandez was King’s employee and entered a default judgment in King’s favor.

The appeals court, in vacating and remanding, wrote that “a genuine issue of material fact controls the employment issue” and that “the record contains some conflicting probative evidence as to whether Hernandez was employed by King at the time of the accident.”

“Even considering the contrary evidence that King advances, it did not conclusively establish that it was Hernandez’s employer at the time of his accident pursuant to the exclusive remedies provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. As a result, we agree with Hernandez that the court erred in ignoring the jury’s verdict,” the court wrote.


Source link