Special-employee finding limits worker’s civil remedies

The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff’s workplace injuries, concluding that the plaintiff qualified as a special employee of the defendant. While the court agreed that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s civil claims, it ruled that the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice rather than with prejudice.

The plaintiff had been placed by a staffing company to perform demolition work under the supervision of the defendant. He argued that a detailed staffing agreement showed he remained solely an employee of the staffing company, preventing the defendant from invoking the Act’s exclusivity provisions. The court rejected that interpretation, noting the agreement did not expressly retain workers as employees of the staffing company nor bar their implied employment with an assigned company.

Applying the three-prong Collins test, the court found ample evidence supporting an implied employment relationship. The plaintiff accepted an assignment with the defendant, worked under its supervision, and performed tasks integral to its operations. Because nothing in the contract limited his employment to the staffing company, and because the defendant exercised control over his day-to-day work, the trial court correctly concluded that the defendant was the plaintiff’s special employer.

This classification placed the plaintiff’s claims squarely within the Workers’ Compensation Act, leaving no jurisdiction for civil tort claims. However, the appellate court held that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice suggests a decision on the merits, which the trial court lacked authority to reach.

The court therefore affirmed the jurisdictional ruling but vacated the portion of the order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice and remanded for entry of a dismissal without prejudice.

The 19-page opinion is Solis-Santos v. Lester, Lawyers Weekly No. 011-265-25.