issued by the labor and industrial relations … · transportation, but the title was changed to...

Issued by THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

Employee:

FINAL AWARD DENYING COMPENSATION (Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge

with Supplemental Opinion)

Injury No.: 14-083378

Linda Daugherty

Employers/Insurers: Plant Peddlers, lnc./Uninsured

Additional Party;

Plants Express, LLC/Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance Split Oak Logistics, LLC/Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance Gary Morris/Uninsured Doris Morris/Uninsured

Treasurer of Missouri, as the Custodian of the Second Injury Fund

This workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by§ 287.480 RSMo. Having reviewed the evidence, read the briefs, heard the parties' arguments, and considered the whole record, we find that the award of the administrative law judge denying compensation is supported by competent and substantial evidence and was made in accordance with the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law. Pursuant to§ 286.090 RS Mo, we affirm the award and decision of the administrative law judge with this supplemental opinion.

Discussion

Piercing the Corporate Veil

Employee alleges the administrative law judge erred in failing to pierce the corporate veil as to Gary and Doris Morris and to find them to be employee's actual employer pursuant to Missouri Law. 1

As stated in Walls v. Allen Cab Co., 903 S.W.2d 937, 942 (Mo. App. 1995):

For workers' compensation purposes, in order to 'pierce the corporate veil,' a claimant must show: 1) control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances, but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the nominal company had at the time of the injury no separate mind, will, or

1 Employee's application for review alternatively argues that the administrative law judge erred in failing to find employee a statutory employee of Split Oak Logistics, LLC (Split Oak Logistics), Plants Express, LLC (Plants Express) and Gary and Doris Morris, pursuant to §287.040 RSMo. Employee's brief does not address the issue of statutory employment, nor did employee's attorney raise it in oral argument before the Commission. By his conduct, we consider employee to have abandoned the issue of statutory employment and therefore do not address it in this award. See Lawson v. Emerson Electric Co., 809 S.W.3d 121 (Mo. App. 1991).

Injury No.: 14-083378 Employee: Linda Daugherty

- 2 -

existence of its own; 2) such control must have been used to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetuate the violation of a statutory duty, or dishonest and unjust act in contravention of claimant's legal rights; and 3) the aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of. 'Piercing the corporate veil' is a viable doctrine under the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law. [citations omitted]

Collet v. American Nat'/ Stores, Inc., 708 S.W.2d 273, 284 (Mo. App. 1986) further states:

[W]hen one corporation shows such domination and control over another that the latter corporation becomes a mere adjunct or the "alter ego" of the first [and] when the formal corporate separateness and the arrangements between the two corporations is devised or used to accomplish a fraud, injustice, or some unlawful purpose, then the separate formal corporate structures will be ignored. Id.

In 1983, at age 21, Gary Morris graduated from trucking school, bought a truck, and began working for several different trucking companies. Around 1994, he acquired a brokerage license and formed Tracy's Transportation, a brokerage business named after his first wife. Initially, Tracy's Transportation remained inactive because Gary Morris believed the newly established business would not attract customers. Around 1996, Gary Morris acquired his own Department of Transportation authority and incorporated Plant Peddlers to engage in hauling freight as an individual truck owner/operator. Gary Morris testified that when he first started Plant Peddlers "[It] was me and a truck"2 and he had no employees.

By 1999, Gary Morris had divorced and was planning to remarry. Respectful of his intended's wish that he no longer work as a truck driver, he decided to use his knowledge of the transportation business by working through a brokerage. Around that time, Gary Morris activated Tracy's Transportation, and hired several truck owner/operators to work for Plant Peddlers. In 2004 Tracy's Transportation was renamed Plants Express.

Gary Morris explained that he maintained Plants Express as a separate entity from Plant Peddlers because brokerages have liability exposures distinct from those of a trucking company. He further explained that, unlike a trucking company, a brokerage is legally required to maintain a bond. As a brokerage, Plants Express owns no trucks or equipment. It further has no dispatchers or safety director. As a trucking company, Plant Peddlers has no authority to broker any loads; Plants Express brokers all of Plant Peddlers' loads. Gary Morris testified alleging that Plant Peddlers "has never been truly profitable [at] any level"3 but serves to meet Plants Express' overflow needs. He further cited his reluctance to terminate the employment of a number of Plant Peddler's longtime employees, stating, "[It's just that] personally I like them, I don't want to tell them to

2 Transcript, 688. 3 Id. 680.


- 3 -

go away or nothing."4 Gary Morris testified he created Split Oak Logistics in approximately 2005 to meet a need for warehousing and other freight-related activities, including a courier service.

Pursuant to Gary Morris' credible testimony, we find Plant Peddlers, Plants Express and Split Oak Logistics to be authentically separate corporate entities. There is no evidence that Gary or Doris Morris devised these entities with a dishonest, unjust or fraudulent purpose or used them to avoid their responsibilities as employers under the workers' compensation law in contravention of this or any other employee's legal rights. There is no legal basis to pierce the corporate veil to find Gary and Doris Morris personally liable for employee's claim.

Status of Plant Peddlers, Inc., as an Employer Operating Under and Subiect to the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law on August 2, 2014

The administrative law judge found that employee was an employee of Plant Peddlers on August 2, 2014, the date of her alleged work injury. However, he concluded that Plant Peddlers had no liability because it was not operating under or subject to the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law. In so finding, the administrative law judge cited employee's "admission" in her initial pro se claim for compensation that "Due to the Plant Peddlers part of the company have [sic] less than 5 employees they did not have W/C coverage."5

Employee testified that owner Doris Morris told that her that Plant Peddlers was not covered by workers' compensation. Employee produced a September 13, 2014, e-mail she received from Doris Morris stating, in pertinent part, "We do not have Workers Comp at this time due to the number of employees for Plant Peddlers. I am checking into adding it regardless of this. I realize you did not want to file a Workers Comp claim, but since there is no coverage, it wouldn't matter ... "6

The statement on employee's original claim asserting that Plant Peddlers was not a covered employer resulted directly from employee's reliance on Plant Peddler owner Doris Morris' advice. The legal determination of whether or not employee is entitled to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law is not an employer's decision to make. Plant Peddlers was under no obligation to consult with employee or explain the basis for its denial of liability. That said having undertaken such a duty it is not in a position to invoke employee's "admission" regarding its status under the law as a defense. See McKaskle v. Industrial Comm'n, 135 Ariz. 168 (Ariz. App. 1982).

Employee testified that as of August 2, 2014, Plant Peddlers employed drivers Daniel Reed, William Mills and Conrad Newman. She alleged that Donald Neely had worked as a part-time driver for Plant Peddlers earlier that year. Doris Morris admitted that she exclusively supervised employee's work for Plant Peddlers and that her e-mail address is dorismorris@[email protected]. Doris Morris further testified that Renee

4 /d.681. 5 Award, p. 14. 6 Transcript, 253.


-4-

Alcorn, though paid by Plants Express, handled billing for Plant Peddlers at the time of employee's injury. Courts have held "the Act does not specify the period of time prior to the accident in question that is to be reviewed in counting employees against an employer, and that ... a reasonable time may be utilized for that purpose." Breeze v. Helm & Sons Lumber Co., 23 S.W.3d 886,888 (Mo. App. 2000).

Based on the above evidence, we conclude that Plant Peddlers had at least five employees and was therefore subject to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act on August 2, 2014. We disavow the administrative law judge's finding to the contrary. For the same reason, we also reject the administrative law judge's conclusion that employee failed to provide employer timely notice of her accident, pursuant to § 287.420 RSMo.7

Medical Causation of Employee's Alleged Accidental lniuries

Section 287.020.3(1) RSMo sets forth the standard for medical causation applicable to this claim and provides, in relevant part, as follows:

An injury by accident is compensable only if the accident was the prevailing factor in causing both the resulting medical condition and disability. "The prevailing factor" is defined to be the primary factor, in relation to any other factor, causing both the resulting medical condition and disability.

I. Employee's Account of Medical Conditions and Disability Caused by her Work lniurv

In 1995 or 1996 employee underwent a pubovaginal sling surgery due to incontinence. Approximately two years later, she had a second pubovaginal sling surgery after a recall of product used in her original surgery. Around 2001, employee had a third pubovaginal sling surgery concurrent with a hysterectomy. Two weeks prior to her August 2, 2014, work injury employee complained to a physician about what she characterized as "a little bit" of incontinence associated with a head cold and horrible coughing.8 Employee alleged no significant problems with incontinence after her last 2001 surgery until three days after her August 2, 2014, accident, when she left work due to a sudden, severe incontinence episode. Employee currently experiences persistent, severe incontinence every day as well as abdominal pain.

Employee had surgery for two herniated discs in her neck around 2008. Employee alleged she experienced no problems with her neck from that time until her August 2, 2014, work injury. Employee now has pain when she attempts to turn her neck and a burning sensation running along the lower part of her scalp into her neck and down her right arm. She cannot lift her arm up in the air or behind her back due to pain in her shoulder. Employee alleges mid-back pain that affects her breathing, sleep and ability

7 Award, Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law, No. 7. p.1. 8 Transcript, 50.


- 5 -

to drive. At hearing employee further revealed that in the past two and a half months, she has also noticed bone chips coming out of her elbows.

She summarized:

Sitting or standing for long periods of time is just-I can't do it. I can't put my, you know, elbows on the table. I cannot write with my arm up on a table properly. With the pain in my neck and my back and my right shoulder and my abdominal pain, I would not benefit any employer in any

't 9 capacI y ...

II. Expert Medical Opinions

Employee produced the deposition and independent medical evaluation (IME) of Dr. Ted Lennard, board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Dr. Lennard met with employee for approximately two hours on August 12, 2016. Dr. Lennard's IME concluded that employee's August 2, 2014, work accident "was the prevailing factor in the onset of her right shoulder, mid back bilateral elbow, left wrist, and neck condition."10

He recommended an MRI of employee's right shoulder and cervical spine, x-rays of her left wrist and bilateral elbows, and physical therapy three times a week for four weeks to each of the injured areas. Dr. Lennard further found that due to the magnitude of her urinary incontinence employee should remain off work until evaluated by a urologist. When deposed on March 24, 2017, Dr. Lennard newly opined that employee's bladder condition was "possibly" caused by her August 2, 2014, work injury. 11

Employer/insurers' jointly submitted the report of board certified physiatrist Dr. James L. Williams. Dr. Williams conducted an independent medical examination of employee on February 24, 2017. After a 132-minute face-to-face evaluation and review of employee's medical records Dr. Williams concluded that employee experienced injuries as a result of a fall at work on August 2, 2014, best characterized as contusions of the back and a minor laceration of the scalp. Dr. Williams found inadequate evidence of significant injuries to employee's elbows, left wrist, or right shoulder. Dr. Williams questioned the idea that employee's bladder prolapse was caused by her August 2, 2014 fall, noting that employee complained about incontinence two weeks prior to her fall and was prescribed oxybutynin, a medication used for neurogenic bladder or urge incontinence. He further noted minimal documentation of urinary incontinence at twenty-five primary care visits between August 2014 and April 2016.

Dr. Williams considered employee's date of maximum medical improvement for her head laceration and back contusions with or without core muscle strain to be September 13, 2014, six weeks after her fall. He evaluated her permanent partial disability for as "0% whole person impairment."12 Dr. Williams found no activity restrictions necessary or appropriate for employee's head, back, and abdomen injuries

9 Transcript, 64. 10 Id., 364. 11 Id. 337. 12 Id., 760.


- 6 -

resultant from her August 2, 2014, fall. With respect to restrictions imposed related to employee's recurrent cystocele, Dr. Williams opined that urinary incontinence in and of itself is not a reason to restrict someone from vocational activity because the condition is manageable by multiple ways including timed voiding or adult diapers that would not preclude vocational activity.

Dr. Williams concluded:

. It is important to note that Ms. Daugherty has a pre-existing chronic pain problem and chronic opioid use that likely confounds her current clinical presentation .... It is also important to note that Ms. Daugherty exhibits significant inconsistencies on physical examination that are consistent with these facts and may also be indicative of other psychosocial factors affecting her clinical presentation. 13

Ill. Our Findings on the Issue of Medical Causation

We credit the opinion of Dr. Williams that employee has reached maximum medical improvement with respect to the head laceration and back contusions she sustained as a result of her August 2, 2014, accident and that she suffered no significant injury to her elbows, left wrist or right shoulder as a result of the fall. We further find Dr. Williams' opinion that employee's urinary incontinence is not, in and of itself, a condition that precludes vocational activity more persuasive than Dr. Lennard's contrary opinion.

Dr. Lennard's statement that employee's fall at work "possibly" caused issues with employee's bladder does not establish medical causation within a reasonable degree of medical certainty and fails to satisfy the prevailing factor standard set out in 287.020.3(1). Employee's preexisting chronic incontinence, her delay in reporting any bladder issues until three days after her work accident and her failure to seek treatment from a urologist for more than four years after the injury undermines with the credibility of her claim of a chronic severe bladder condition resultant from her work injury. After carefully considering the medical evidence in the record including employee's testimony and the expert opinions of Dr. Lennard and Dr. Williams, we find that employee has failed to establish a medical causal connection between her alleged fall at work on August 2, 2014, and any of her claimed injuries.

Decision

We affirm the administrative law judge's award denying all compensation. We affirm and adopt the award of the administrative law judge as supplemented herein.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Kevin Elmer, issued November 29, 2018, is attached and incorporated herein to the extent not inconsistent with this supplemental decision.

13 Transcript, 760.


- 7 -

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this __ 7,__th-___ day of August 2019.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

Robert W. Corne~n

SEPARATE OPINION FILED Reid K. Forrester, Member

Attest:

v~~,µe-Secretary

Injury No.: 14-083378

Employee: Linda Daugherty

SEPARATE OPINION

I have read the briefs of the parties, heard the parties' arguments and reviewed the whole record. I have considered all of the competent and substantial evidence based on record as a whole.

Based on my review of the evidence as well as my consideration of the relevant provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, I concur with the majority's decision affirming the administrative law judge's award denying compensation.

I agree with the majority's finding that the employee's statement, included in her initial prose application for review, declaring Plant Peddlers to be exempt from the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, should not control the issue of Plant Peddlers' status as a covered employer.

I disagree, however, with the majority's extrapolation, based on testimony of the employee and Doris Morris, that Plant Peddler maintained the requisite five employees required to be subject to the Law. In my opinion, the only competent and substantial evidence of Plant Peddlers' employee census as of the date of employee's injury is the company's "Employee Totals Report". 14 See Wilmeth v. TM/, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 476 (Mo. App. 2000). This document shows only four employees on Plant Peddlers' payroll during the period August 1, 2014 to August 29, 2014: Linda Daugherty, William Mills, Conrad Newman and Daniel Reed. Based on this evidence, Plant Peddlers does not meet the requisite threshold of five employees required to be a covered employer pursuant to§ 287.030 of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law.

In all other respects, I concur with the majority's supplemental opinion.

Reid K. Forrester, Member

14 Transcript, 271.

,,

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

AWARD

Employee: Linda Daughfrty

NIA

Injury No. 14-083378

Dependents:

Employer: Plant Peddlers, Inc./Plants Express, LLC/Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC/Gary Morris/Doris Morris

Insurer: Plant Peddlers, Inc. - Uninsured/Plants Express, LLC - Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance/Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC - Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance/Gary Morris- Uninsured/Doris Mon-is - Uninsured

Additional Party: Treasurer of Missouri, as the Custodian of the Second Injury Fund (not present)

Hearing Date: August 17,2018 Checked by: KAE

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW

l. Are any benefits awarded herein? No.

2. Was the injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? No.

3. Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? No.

4. Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: August 2, 2014.

5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: Howell County, Missouri.

6. Was above employee in employ of above employer at time of alleged accident or occupational disease? Plant Peddlers - YES; Plants Express, LLC - NO; Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC - NO; Gary Morris -NO; Doris MoJTis - NO.

7. Did employer receive proper notice? No.

8. Did accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? Yes,

9. Was claim for compensation filed within time required by Law? Yes.

10. Was employer insured by above insurer? Plant Peddlers, Inc. - Uninsured/Plants Express, LLC-Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance/Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC - Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance/Gary Morris - Uninsured/Doris Morris - Uninsured

11. Describe work employee was doing and how accident happened or occupational disease contracted: After inspecting a truck, Claimant slipped and fell.

12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No.

l 3. Parts of body injured by accident or occupational disease: Alleged head, bilateral elbows, right shoulder, abdomen, back, and body as a whole.

14. Compensation paid to-date for temporaty disability: $0.00

WC-32-Rl (6-81) Pagel

''

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Employee: Linda Daugherty InjuryNo.: 14-083378

15. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $0.00

16. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? $0.00

17. Employee's average weekly wages: $769.23

18. Weekly compensation rate: $512.82 (TTD) and $451.02 (PPD)

19. Method wages computation: By stipulation.

COMP EN SA TION PAY ABLE

20. Amount of compensation payable: None

21. Second Injury Fund Liability: N/ A

22. Future requirements awarded: None

Said payments shall be as provided in the finding of fact and rulings oflaw and shall be subject to modification and review as provided by law.

The compensation awarded to the claimant shall be subject to a lien in the amount of25 percent of all payments hereunder in favor of the following attorney for necessary legal services rendered to the claimant: N/A

WC-32-Rl (6·El) P~ge 2

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Employee: Linda Daugherty Injury No.: 14-083378

Employee:

Dependents:

Employers:

Insurers:

FINDINGS OF FACT and RULINGS OF LAW:

Linda Daugherty Injury No. 14-083378

NIA

Plant Peddlers, Inc./Plants Express, LLC/Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC/Gary Morris/Doris Morris

Plant Peddlers, Inc. - Uninsured/Plants Express, LLC - Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance/Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC - Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance/Gary Morris - Uninsured/Doris M01Tis - Uninsured

Additional Party: Treasurer of Missouri, as the Custodian of the Second Injury Fund (not present)

Hearing Date: August 17, 2018 Checked by: KAE

The above-referenced workers' compensation claim was heard before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge on August 17, 2018. The parties were afforded an opportunity to submit briefs, resulting in the record being completed and submitted to the undersigned on or about September 7, 2018.

The claimant, Linda Daugherty, appeared personally and through her attorney, Brandon Potter, Esq. The employer, Plant Peddlers, Inc., appeared through its attorney, Gary Collins, Esq. Alleged employer, Plants Express, LLC, appeared through its attorney, George Floros, Esq. Alleged employer, Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC, appeared through its attorney, Daniel Schmitz, Esq. Attorney Gary Collins verbally entered his appearance on behalf of alleged employers Gary Morris and Doris Morris at the hearing. The Second Injury Fund did not appear at the proceeding, in light of the parties being in agreement that the Second Injury Fund need not appear, considering the nature of the hearing and their agreement that no evidence admitted will be admitted as to the Second Injury Fund.

STIPULATIONS

The parties stipulated that:

(1) On or about August 2, 2014, Plants Express, LLC, and Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC, were employers operating under and subject to The Missouri Workers' Compensation Law. Plant Peddlers, Inc., Gary Morris, and Doris Morris were uninsured. Plants Express, LLC, was fully insured by Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance. Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC, was fully insured by Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance.

l'ag~ 3


(2) On the alleged injury date of August 2, 2014, Claimant was an employee of Plant Peddlers, Inc., and was working under and subject to The Missouri Workers' Compensation Law.

(3) On or about August 2, 2014, the claimant sustained an accident, which arose out of and in the course of her employment with Plant Peddlers, LLC.

(4) The above-referenced employment and accident occurred in Howell County, Missouri. The paiiies agree to venue lying in Greene County, Missouri. Venue is proper.

(5) The Claim for Compensation was filed within the time prescribed by R.S.Mo. § 287.430.

(7) At the time of the alleged accident, the claimant's average weekly wage was $7 69 .23, which is sufficient to allow a compensation rate of $512. 82 for temporary disability compensation and a compensation rate of $451.02 for pennanent disability compensation.

(8) Temporary disability benefits have been provided to the claimant in the amount of $0.00, representing O weeks in disability benefits.

(9) The employer and insurer has not provided medical treatment to the employee.

ISSUES

The issues to be resolved by hearing include:

(I) Whether Claimant was an employee of Plants Express, LLC, and/or Split Oaks Logistics Center, LLC, on August 2, 2014.

(2) Whether Plant Peddlers, Inc., constitutes an "employer" for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law.

(3) Whether Claimant provided proper notice under R.S.Mo. § 287.420.

( 4) Whether the alleged accident caused the injuries and disabilities for which benefits are now being claimed.

(5) Whether the claimant has sustained injuries that will require additional medical care in order to cure and relieve the claimant of the effects of the mJunes.

(6) Whether the claimant is entitled to temporary disability benefits. (The claimant seeks payment of$92,600.64, which represents 180 and 4/7 weeks of past temporary disability compensation, plus future temporary disability compensation).

Page 4


(7) Whether Claimant can seek benefits personally from Gary Morris and Doris Morris by "piercing the corporate veil."

(8) Wbether the claimant is entitled to recovery of costs, pursuant to R.S.Mo. § 287.560.

EVIDENCE PRESENTED

Claimant, Linda Daugherty, testified at the hearing in support of her claim. In addition, Claimant offered for admission the following exhibits:

Exhibit 1 ........................................................................... Claim for Compensation Exhibit 2 ....................... Answer to Claim for Compensation (Plants Express, Inc.) Exhibit 3 ...................... Answer to Claim for Compensation (Plant Peddlers, LLC) Exhibit 4 ...................................................................... Employer's Business Model Exhibit 5 ............................................................................. E-mail Correspondence Exhibit 6 .................................... Certificate oflncorporation - Plant Peddlers, Inc. Exhibit 7 ................................... Certificate of Organization - Plants Express, LLC Exhibit 8 ................ Certificate of Organization - Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC Exhibit 9 ............................................................................... Cash Flow Statements Exhibit 10 ......................... 2016 Annual Registration Report - Plant Peddlers, Inc. Exhibit 11 ..................... Motor Carrier Identification Report - Plant Peddlers, Inc. Exhibit 12 .... Certificate of Liability Insurance- Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC Exhibit 13 ......................... Certificate of Liability Insurance - Plant Peddlers, Inc. Exhibit 14 .......................................................................................... Employee File Exhibit 15 .............................................................. Medical Records of Cox Health Exhibit 16 ............................................................... Deposition of Dr. Ted Lennard Exhibit 17 ............................................ Medical Records of Physicians for Women Exhibit 18 ....................................... Medical Records ofTCMH Internal Medicine Exhibit 19 ............................................ Medical Records of Valley Medical Center Exhibit 20 ............................................................... Deposition of Linda Daugherty Exhibit 21 ...................................................................... Deposition of Gary Morris Exhibit 22 ..................................................................... Deposition of Doris Morris

The exhibits were received and admitted into evidence.

The employer and insurer did not present any witnesses at the hearing of this case. The employer and insurer offered for admission the following exhibits:

Exhibit A ................................... Complete Medical Report of Dr. James Williams

In addition, the parties identified several documents filed with the Division of Workers' Compensation, which were made part of a single exhibit identified as the Legal File. The undersigned took administrative or judicial notice of the documents contained in the Legal File, which include: all documents filed with the Division of Workers' Compensation relating to Injury No. 14-083378.

WC-32-Rl (6-SI) Page 5


All exhibits appear as the exhibits were received and admitted into evidence at the evidentiary hearing. There has been no alteration (including highlighting or underscoring) of any exhibit by the undersigned judge, except that page numbers were added to Exhibit 14.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Background & Employment

Claimant, Linda Daughe1iy, is 58 years of age, having been born on December 16, 1959. At the time of the accident on August 2, 2014, Claimant lived at 2076 County Rd. in Willow Springs, Missouri. She is currently married to Charles Wayne Daugherty, but is in the process of obtaining a divorce.

Ms. Daugherty has received an associate's degree in business administration. She testified she has approximately 20 years of experience working in human resources. She also co-owns a trucking business with her husband.

Claimant began working for Plant Peddlers, Inc., (hereinafter "Plant Peddlers") on October 14, 2013. She submitted her resume to Doris Morris before being called in for an interview. Sho1ily thereafter, she was hired as the safety and dispatch director to oversee company trucks and leased trucks for Plant Peddlers.

The claimant worked for Plant Peddlers through October 3, 2014. She testified that Plant Peddlers had tlu·ee company drivers prior to August 2, 2014, the date of her injury. Ms. Daugherty identified Daniel Reed, Conrad Newn1an, and William Mills as the drivers employed by Plant Peddlers. Daniel Reed had been hired a few weeks before the injury date, and he had been terminated on August I, 2014. Claimant testified her job duties involved keeping company drivers loaded. She would also locate loads for leased vehicles.

Ms. Daugherty shared an office with Rick Pliler, the manager of Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC's, warehouse (hereinafter "Split Oak Logistics"). Their respective desks were on opposite ends of a single room.

Claimant explained that Plants Express, LLC, (hereinafter "Plants Express") was a brokerage operating out of the same facility as Plant Peddlers and Split Oak Logistics. Claimant would secure orders for loads through Plants Express. All three companies were owned and controlled by Gary and Doris Morris. She would assist Plants Express in finding outside drivers and locating loads. She testified Gary Mo1Tis instructed her to complete tasks on behalf of Plants Express.

She would often speak with personnel of Plants Express. Claimant would observe the counter where loads were located. She would then give the loads to drivers and owner/operators. She testified she was often asked to find loads for trucks hauling products for Plants Express. If a prospective customer called in for Plants Express, Claimant would put the customer on hold until she could find someone from Plants Express to assist them. If an order was placed tlu·ough Plants Express, she would enter the order into the system. She estimated that 7 5 percent of the loads she dealt with were on behalf of Plants Express.

WC-32-R! (6-8!) Pnge 6


Claimant also explained that Split Oak Logistics is a warehouse area that operated out of the same facility as Plant Peddlers and Plants Express. Drivers would load and unload in the Split Oak Logistics warehouse. If Mr. Pliler was busy, Claimant would answer the Split Oak Logistics phone at the request of Doris Morris. She would also check in and check out drivers entering and exiting the Split Oak Logistics warehouse. She testified Rick Pliler would occasionally ask her to complete certain tasks on behalf of Split Oak Logistics. On cross-examination, Claimant was asked if she was required to do what Mr. Pliler instructed. Claimant suggested this question demonstrated a misunderstanding of her relationship with Mr. Pliler.

Claimant testified that at the beginning of her employment she reported to Gary Morris and Doris Morris. Near the end of her employment, she was instructed to report directly to Kris Norman, a supervisor for Plants Express.

On cross-examination, Claimant testified Plant Peddlers was identified on her paychecks. At her deposition, she testified she had a Plant Peddlers e-mail address. (Ex. 20, pg. 17). At the hearing, she testified she had a centurytel.net e-mail address. The e-mail correspondence contained in the Employee File (Ex. 14) reflects an e-mail address of [email protected]. Claimant testified she never identified herself as an employee of Split Oak Logistics in her e-mail.

At her deposition, Claimant testified she answered the phone, "Plant Peddlers. This is Linda." (Ex. 20, pg. 17). At the hearing, Claimant testified she would answer the phone, "This is Linda." Claimant testified Plant Peddlers and Split Oak Logistics had two different phones. She testified she was never disciplined for not doing things for Plants Express or Split Oak Logistics.

At her deposition, Claimant also testified that when she would answer Mr. Pliler's phone, she would say, "Split Oak Logistics." (Ex. 20, pg. 18). If someone called for Mr. Pliler, Claimant would try to find him, or would take a message. (Ex. 20, pgs. 20-21 ). If a driver came to the office to check in and Mr. Pliler was in the warehouse, Claimant would check in the driver. (Ex. 20, pgs. 18-19).

Claimant further testified at her deposition that she would go over log sheets for employees of Split Oak Logistics and respond to breakdowns when Mr. Pliler was on vacation. (Ex. 20, pg. 23). She testified Doris Morris told her when she was hired that she would maintain the log sheets for both Plant Peddlers drivers and Split Oak Logistics Drivers. (Ex. 20, pg. 25). Claimant testified Doris Morris and Gary Morris told warehouse employees to take things to Claimant if Mr. Pliler wasn't present. ( ex. 20, pg. 26).

Accident

Claimant testified that, sh01tly before August 2, 2014, she had hired Daniel Reed to haul loads for Plant Peddlers. Mr. Reed was not perf01ming his job duties very well, and Claimant ultimately had to terminate the driver's employment. The driver was supposed to drop off the Plant Peddlers truck at the facility on Friday, August 1, 2014, but he failed to do so.

On Saturday, August 2, 2014, Claimant received a phone call from the driver indicating he had dropped the truck off at the facility. Therefore, Claimant decided to inspect the vehicle.

WC-32-RI {6-81) Pngr 7

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Employee: Linda Daugherty lnjuryNo.: 14-083378

Claimant testified she had worked on Saturdays in the past, and she had never been instructed that she should not come in to work on Saturdays.

At the hearing, Claimant testified the driver worked for Plant Peddlers. She testified she had to inspect the vehicle on behalf of Plant Peddlers. She testified the inspection of the vehicle had nothing to do with Plants Express or Split Oak Logistics.

After arriving at the facility and unlocking the Split Oak Logistics warehouse doors so her son could load his truck, Claimant proceeded to inspect the driver's truck. She testified she commonly enters and exits the company vehicles to ensure the trucks are clean, update information, and place orders in the trucks.

Following the inspection of the truck, Claimant slipped on the step. This caused her to fall onto gravel. She testified she landed on her mid-back. Claimant testified she was immediately in a lot of pain. There was blood coming from her head and scrapes on the palms of her hands.

Claimant testified she was encouraged by her husband and her son to go to the emergency room, but she thought she would be fine. She testified she had no intention of saying anything to her supervisor about the accident. Over the next several weeks, however, she felt she had really hurt herself.

Claimant continued working after the August 2, 2014, accident. She eventually reported her injury to Renee Alcorn, an employee of Plants Express. She testified she eventually told Doris Morris about the injury.

As referenced above, Claimant offered her Employee File into evidence at the hearing. (Ex. 14). This exhibit contains e-mail conespondence exchanged between Claimant and Doris Morris subsequent to August 2, 2014.

On August 6, 2014, Claimant sent an e-mail to Doris Morris indicating she would need to take off work on August 11, 2014, to attend an appointment with her eye doctor. Claimant indicated she was having trouble with her current glasses, and she was wondering if this could be contributing to some of her headaches. There was no mention of a work injury.

On September 3, 2014, Ms. Monis e-mailed Claimant and stated:

"Linda,

Renee has told me about your incident and falling out of the truck. I now need for you to provide all the information to me, first of all the date it happened. I will see what forms I need completed.

Doris" (Exhibit 14, pg. 83).

Later that same day, Claimm1t responded:

"Dear Doris,

WC-32-Rl {6-81) Page 8


This happened early afternoon on August 2nd between noon & 1pm. I had come to the office to check out PP02 & trlr #2607 after I confirmed with Dan that he had brought it back to the warehouse. I wanted to check the condition of the truck & trlr, make sure both keys and the fuel card were in it and make sure he had not torn anything up. I was simply stepping back out of the truck and I had ah old of the handle to step down and the next thing I knew I was airborne. I landed on my back (more in the middle) and then my head hit the gravel immediately afterward and broke my head open. After the initial shock, I felt so stupid and could not figure out why it had even happened. It's not like I haven't crawled in & out of semi-tractors' for 20+ years.

I have never filed a WC claim and that's not what I want to do. I do everything I can to protect Plant Peddlers, which also means protecting you & Gary. My goal is to treat PP as if it were my own company which is why I make myself available to my drivers even after hours when I'm not in the office. This keeps me in the loop with problems they encounter, etc.

If you need further information; please let me know. Thank you." (Exhibit 14, pg. 83).

At the hearing, Claimant testified she believed she reported her injury to Doris Morris approximately two weeks after August 2, 2014. Claimant testified Ms. Morris told her Plant Peddlers did not have workers' compensation insurance, so Ms. Morris would take care of the deductibles and co-pays for her medical treatment.

On cross-examination, Claimant was questioned about the e-mail exchange on September 3, 2014. She testified that when the e-mail was sent she had already reported the injury to Doris MotTis. She could not recall specifically when she had reported the injury to Ms. Mon·is.

Following the injury, Claimant continued to work full duty. She estimated she missed eight to nine days of work between August 2, 2014, and the end of her employment.

Claimant's employment was te1minated on October 3, 2014. She testified Doris Morris approached her at her desk, told Claimant to gather her things, and asked her to leave. At this point, Doris Morris had paid some of the bills associated with her medical treatment. On crossexamination, Claimant testified that, leading up to her te1mination, she was perfonning all aspects of her job effectively.

Following the te1mination of her employment, Claimant applied for and received unemployment benefits until March 3, 2015. She testified she tr·ied to obtain employment while receiving unemployment benefits, but she had to be honest with interviewers about her limitations. At her deposition, Claimant testified she did not continue to seek employment after her unemployment benefits ran out. (Ex. 20, pg. 12). At the hearing, she testified she continued looking for employment after she stopped receiving unemployment benefits.

Deposition Testimony of Doris Morris

The deposition of Doris MotTis was taken on May 5, 2017. Ms. Morris's deposition was offered and admitted as Exhibit 22.

WC-32·Rl (6-81) P~gc 9


Ms. Morris testified that she has been employed with Plants Express since around 2000. (Ex. 22, pg. 5). She is currently the Chief Operating Officer for Plants Express, as well as the managing member of Split Oak Logistics. (Ex. 22, pg. 8-9). Her husband, Gary Morris, is the president of Plants Express. Gary Morris is also employed with Split Oak Logistics. (Ex. 22, pg. 8).

Ms. Morris testified that she is not an employee of Plant Peddlers. However, she admitted that she has supervised employees of Plant Peddlers. (Ex. 22, pg. 9). She testified she basically oversees Plant Peddlers, Plants Express, and Split Oak Logistics. (Ex. 22, pg. 15).

Ms. Morris testified that the profits of Plant Peddlers are redirected into the company. (Ex. 22, pg. 14 ). Furthermore, none of the profit of Plant Peddlers has ever been loaned to Plants Express or Split Oak Logistics. (Ex. 22, pg. 14).

Ms. Morris testified that Renee Alcon is the billing specialist for Plants Express. (Ex. 22, pg. 10). Ms. Morris acknowledged that Ms. Alcorn did accounts receivable for both Plant Peddlers and Plants Express. Ms. Alcorn was in the process of being transferred from Plants Express to Plant Peddlers when she resigned. (Ex. 22, pg. 15).

Ms. Morris testified that Claimant was employed with Plant Peddlers. (Ex. 22, pg. 10). She hired Claimant to work for Plant Peddlers. (Ex. 22, pg. 11 ). Ms. Morris acknowledged that she supervised Claimant to some extent, but Claimant worked independently on the day-to-day operations of Plant Peddlers. Ms. Morris explained that Claimant rep01ied to Ms. M01Tis and no one else. (Ex. 22, pg. 10).

Ms. Morris testified Claimant was hired in 2013 to perform Plant Peddlers' safety and dispatch. She testified Claimant would dispatch Plant Peddlers' company drivers, as well as owner/operators. (Ex. 22, pg. 16). Ms. Morris explained that this was a new position that was created in conjunction with the hiring of Claimant. (Ex. 22, pg. 17).

Ms. Morris testified Claimant was hired by Plant Peddlers. She was paid by Plant Peddlers. Ms. Morris testified Claimant did not do any work for Plants Express. (Ex. 22, pg. 44).

With respect to the work accident, Ms. Morris testified that Claimant reported her injury at some time in September 2014. According to Ms. Morris, Claimant had an attendance problem before August 2, 2014, and she was continuing to miss work. Ms. Alcorn mentioned to Ms. Morris that Claimant was missing some work because she had fallen out of a truck. (Ex. 22, pg. 20). Ms. Morris testified she later found out Claimant had mentioned her injury to co-workers before eventually reporting the injury to Ms. Morris. (Ex. 22, pg. 41). Ms. Morris testified Claimant's job duties for Plant Peddlers did not include cleaning out trucks. (Ex. 22, pg. 45).

Deposition Testimony of Gary ]\;[orris

The deposition of Gary Morris was taken on May 5, 2017. Mr. Morris' deposition was offered and admitted as Exhibit 21.

Mr. Morris explained that Plant Peddlers was incorporated in 1996. (Ex. 21, pg. 18). Plants Express was created in 1994. (Ex. 21, pg. 20). It was originally named Tracy's

Page 10


Transportation, but the title was changed to Plants Express in 2002. (Ex. 21, pg. 21). Mr. Morris explained that Plants Express brokered plants, general commodities, and cheeses. (Ex. 21, pg. 28). Mr. Morris estimated that Plants Express had five or six employees in August 2014. (Ex. 21, pg. 53).

Mr. Morris testified that Split Oak Logistics is a warehouse that was started in 2006 or 2007. (Ex. 21, pg. 32-34). He explained that Split Oak Logistics provides warehousing, a courier service, reconditioning of metal racks, and stacking crates. (Ex. 21, pg. 35-36). Mr. Morris testified he did not market Split Oak Logistics to former clients of Plant Peddlers or Plants Express because those clients did not require warehousing. (Ex. 21, pg. 41-42). They just wanted transportation of products. (Ex. 21, pg. 42). Mr. Morris indicated Split Oak Logistics has about 20 employees. (Ex. 21, pg. 47).

According to Mr. Morris, if a prospective customer calls Split Oak Logistics, an employee of Plants Express will typically answer the phone. (Ex. 21, pg. 50). The Plants Express employee will then transfer the call to Split Oak Logistics. (Ex. 21, pg. 50). If it turns out the customer requires shipping services, the call will then be transferred back to Plants Express. (Ex. 21, pg. 50).

Mr. Morris acknowledged that Plants Express employees are not forbidden from using Plant Peddlers trucks. (Ex. 21, pg. 54). Plants Express would use Plant Peddlers as a trucking company. (Ex. 21, pg. 55). Plants Express may also broker out to a different trucking company if Plant Peddlers doesn't have the capacity to handle the load. (Ex. 21, pg. 55). However, if someone calls specifically for a Plant Peddlers truck, the employee of Plants Express is not allowed to broker the load out to another trucking company. (Ex. 21, pg. 56).

Mr. M01Tis testified Plants Express does not perform dispatch services for the trucks and freight they broker. (Ex. 21, pg. 61). Plants Express doesn't own any trucks. Plants Express doesn't have a human resources director. (Ex. 21, pg. 62).

Mr. Morris testified that on August 2, 2014, Claimant was the dispatcher and safety director for Plant Peddlers. (Ex. 21, pg. 64). If Plants Express used Plant Peddlers for a load, Claimant would be the dispatcher. (Ex. 21, pg. 65). Mr. Morris testified that Claimant's job duties involved safety and dispatch for Plant Peddlers. She also hired owner/operators and company drivers for Plant Peddlers. (Ex. 21, pg. 76).

Mr. Mo1Tis acknowledged that Plant Peddlers, Plants Express, and Split Oak Logistics all operate out of a single building. He testified there are walls separating the businesses. Mr. Morris has a desk on the first floor with the employees of Plants Express. (Ex. 21, pg. 71).

With respect to the work accident, Mr. Mo1Tis testified that Claimant must have informed Renee Alcorn about the incident because at some point Doris Morris told Mr. Morris that Claimant had fallen 45 to 50 days prior. (Ex. 21, pg. 74).

WC-32·RI (6-81} Pnge 11

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Employee: Linda Daugherty

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

InjmyNo.: 14-083378

1. Claimant has not met her burden of proving she was an employee of Split Oak Logistics Center, LLC, on August 2, 2014.

R.S.Mo. § 287.130 states:

If the injury or death occurs while the employee is in the joint service of two or more employers, their liability shall be joint and several, and the employee may hold any or all of such employers. As between themselves such employers shall have contribution from each other in the proportion of their several liability for the wages of such employee but nothing in this chapter shall prevent such employers from making a different distribution of their proportionate contributions as between themselves.

It is not in dispute that Claimant was an employee of Plant Peddlers on August 2, 2014. Both Plants Express and Split Oak Logistics dispute that Claimant was also their employee.

At the hearing, Claimant testified she was hired to be the safety and dispatch director for Plant Peddlers on October 14, 2013. She testified she was tasked with overseeing company trucks and leased trucks for Plant Peddlers. Her job duties involved keeping company drivers loaded and locating loads for leased vehicles.

Claimant testified she shared an office with Rick Pliler, the manager of Split Oak Logistics. Their respective desks were on opposite ends of a single room. Claimant testified that Split Oak Logistics is a warehouse that operated out of the same facility as Plant Peddlers and Plants Express. At the warehouse, drivers would load and unload.

If Mr. Pliler was busy, Claimant would answer Mr. Pliler' s phone on behalf of Split Oak Logistics. She testified she did this at the request of Doris Monis. Claimant would also check in and check out drivers entering and exiting the Split Oak Logistics warehouse.

Although Claimant testified she would occasionally complete tasks at the request of Mr. Pliler, when she was asked if she was required to follow Mr. Pliler's instructions, Claimant's testimony suggested this was never an issue. Claimant testified she was never disciplined for failing to complete tasks on behalf of Split Oak Logistics. She testified her paychecks did not identify Split Oak Logistics, and her e-mail did not contain any reference to Split Oak Logistics.

Perhaps most importantly, on August 2, 2014, Claimant was inspecting the truck on behalf of Plant Peddlers. She testified the act of inspecting the truck was paii of her job duties for Plant Peddlers and had nothing to do with her alleged job duties for Plants Express or Split Oak Logistics. No evidence was offered at hearing that would suggest the act of inspecting vehicles owned and dispatched by Plant Peddlers was in any way connected to the operation of Plants Express or Split Oak Logistics.

In A1artin v. Mid-America Farm Lines, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. en bane 1989), the claimant worked as the "second seat driver" of an over-the-road semitrailer rig owned by Dennis

WC-32-Rl (6-Sl) Png~ 12


Chappell, who had leased the vehicle from Mid-America Farm Lines, Inc. Id. at 106. While cleaning the cab of the trailer, the claimant suffered a fall. Id.

Mid-America Farm Lines, Inc., argued there was not sufficient competent evidence to establish that it was liable as the employer of the claimant. Id. at 107. It argued that the claimant contacted Chappell, was paid by Chappell, and was reimbursed by Chappell for expenses relating to the maintenance of the truck. Id. Therefore, Mid-America Farm Lines, Inc. argued the claimant was the employee of Chappell, or at least the joint employee of Chappell and Mid-America Farm Lines, Inc. Id.

In concluding that Mid-America Farm Lines, Inc., was at least a joint employer of the claimant, the Supreme Comt stated, "Cleaning the cab relates to the operation of the equipment within the control of Mid-America, not to maintenance for which Chappell was responsible." Id.

The analysis used by the Supreme Court in Martin demonstrates the emphasis placed on the actions the claimant was perfonning at the time of his or her accident. In this case, it is not in dispute that Claimant's injury arose out of her employment with Plant Peddlers. On August 2, 2014, Claimant was inspecting the vehicle dropped off by a Plant Peddlers driver. The act of inspecting the vehicle was part of her job duties for Plant Peddlers and had absolutely nothing to do with her alleged job duties for Plants Express or Split Oak Logistics.

"Joint employment occurs when a single employee, under contract with two employers, and under simultaneous control of both, performs services for both employers and the services provided are the same or closely related to that of the other." Patton v. Patton, 308 S.W.2d 739, 748 (Mo. 1958). "The pivotal question in dete1mining the existence of the employment relationship is whether the alleged employer had the right to control the employee's conduct of the work at the time of the accident." Miller v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc., 714 S.W. 652,656 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986); Ceradsky v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., 583 S.W.2d 193, 197 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).

Claimant offered no evidence at the hearing to suggest she was under contract with any entity other than Plant Peddlers. None of this testimony suggests Claimant was, at any point, under the control of Split Oak Logistics or Plants Express. In fact, when questioned at the hearing about whether Mr. Pliler had the right to control her actions, Claimant testified this was not how their relationship worked. Claimant had an opportunity to explain how she was under the control of Split Oak Logistics, but no explanation was ever offered.

Additionally, although Claimant's testimony would suggest she occasionally assisted Rick Pliler on behalf of Split Oak Logistics and employees of Plants Express, this testimony does not change the fact that, on August 2, 2014, when Claimant came to work to inspect the Plant Peddlers vehicle, she wasn't doing anything related to the furtherance to the business of Split Oak Logistics or Plants Express. To fmd Split Oak Logistics or Plants Express liable for benefits related to an injury that occurred as a direct result of Claimant's job duties for Plant Peddlers would be patently inequitable.

Based on the foregoing, this Comt concludes Claimant was an employee of Plant Peddlers on August 2, 2014. She was not an employee of Split Oak Logistics or Plants Express because no

WC-32-RI (6-Sl)


evidence was offered that would support the conclusion that Split Oak Logistics of Plants Express had any right to control Claimant's actions.

2. Claimant has not met her burden of proving Plant Peddlers, Inc., was operating under and subject to Missouri Workers' Compensation Law on August 2, 2014.

On the Saturday the claimant was injured, she came to the premises to inspect a Plant Peddlers truck which had been returned by a Plant Peddlers driver she had terminated. She admitted at the hearing that she was acting in her capacity as Dispatch and Safety Manager for Plant Peddlers on August 2, 2014 and was inspecting the truck to make sure that all Plant Peddlers property had been returned. The terminated employee, Daniel Reed, had been hired a few weeks earlier. Ms. Daugherty testified that there were two other drivers employed by Plant Peddlers in August of 2014, William Mills and Comad Newman. Reed, Mills, Newman, and Ms. Daugherty are shown as being employees of Plant Peddlers on a Plant Peddlers "Employee Totals Report" (Exhibit 14, pg. 84). Exhibit 14 also contains a Plant Peddlers' violation list that documents Plant Peddler and owner-operator driving violations for the period 1/1/14 through 6/30/14 (Exhibit 14, pgs. 80-82). This lists Mills, Newman, and Donald Neely as drivers of Plant Peddlers trucks. 1 Ms. Daugherty testified at the hearing that Neely had been a part-time driver for Plant Peddlers earlier in 2014.

The initial Claim for Compensation is dated 10/28/14 and was received by the Division of Workers' Compensation on 11/3/14. At the time, Ms. Daugherty filed to claim prose. The Claim names only one employer, Plant Peddlers, and indicates that Ms. Daugherty was the company dispatcher/safety director. It describes the accident as occurring while she was checking a Plant Peddlers truck to make sure the keys, fuel card, and other company property had been left in the truck. Of particular significance, she makes the following statement: "Due to the Plant Peddlers patt of the company have less than 5 employees they did not have W /C coverage." This is a clear admission by the claimant that Plant Peddlers did not have five employees at the time of her injury.

There was evidence presented in the fo1m of testimony that Doris Morris did pay for some medical treatment for the claimant. However, there was no evidence presented of contractual relationship between Gary or Doris Morris and Ms. Daugherty. Furthermore, no employment relationship between those individuals was presented into evidence.

I find that during 2014 Plai1t Peddlers employed no more than four employees. The claimant failed to prove that Plant Peddlers, Gary Manis, or Doris Manis were operating under or subject to Missouri Workers' Compensation Law.

CONCLUSION

Given the claimant's failure to prove that joint employment existed with Plants Express, LLC, and/or Split Oaks Logistic Center, LLC, and her failure to prove that Plant Peddlers, Inc., was operating under and subject to the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law the employee's claim for compensation is denied.

1 Mr. Reed was not listed because he wasn't hired by Plant Peddlers until sometime in July.

WC-32-RI (6-Sl) Puge 14


Given the denial of the employee's claim on the issues of employment and applicability of Workers' Compensation Law, the remaining issues are moot and will not be ruled upon.

Although this case was heard as a temporary hearing, the award is final.

I certify tl~,r en .Jl:2-9d;? , I delivered _a oopy of tlie fN~oolng award to the parties !o 1110 cr,~o. A co111plele record _of the n1ethod or dellvo1y and date of service upon each p<11ty is retained with the executed award in the Division's case file.

By __ __Jvf1dJ4/{'.1,LV __ _ I

WC-32-RI {6-81)

Made by: A Kevin Elmer

Administrative Law Judge Division of Workers' Compensation

Page 15

issued by the labor and industrial relations … · transportation, but the title was changed to...

Documents