Perez v. The Lamar Group

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: June 26, 2019
• Docket: 2019-UP-229
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Rey Perez, Claimant, Respondent,

v.

The Lamar Group, LLC, and/or Green Valley Country Club, Employer, and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company, Carrier, Respondents,

and

South Carolina Uninsured Employers Fund, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001422

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-229 Submitted May 8, 2019 – Filed June 26, 2019

AFFIRMED

David Hill Keller, of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Tracy Welsh Tiddy, of Willson Jones Carter & Baxley, P.A., of Greenville, for Respondents Green Valley Country Club and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company. Kathryn Williams and Donald E. Kamb, Jr., both of Williams & Kamb, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent Rey Perez.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Posey v. Proper Mold & Eng'g, Inc., 378 S.C. 210, 216, 661 S.E.2d 395, 398 (Ct. App. 2008); ("[T]his court has the power and duty to . . . decide the jurisdictional facts in accord with its view of the preponderance of the evidence."); S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-400 (2015) (establishing that a subcontractor's worker is a statutory employee of an owner if the activity is "part of [the owner's] trade, business[,] or occupation"); Poch v. Bayshore Concrete Prods./S.C., Inc., 386 S.C. 13, 25, 686 S.E.2d 689, 695 (Ct. App. 2009) (establishing the following three- factor test for determining whether an activity is in the trade or business of an owner who hires a contractor or subcontractor: "(1) whether the activity is an important part of the trade or business, (2) whether the activity is a necessary, essential and integral part of the business, and (3) whether the identical activity in question has been performed by employees of the principal employer" (quoting Bailey v. Owen Elec. Steel Co. of S.C., 298 S.C. 36, 39, 378 S.E.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1989))); Raines v. Gould, Inc., 288 S.C. 541, 543–47, 343 S.E.2d 655, 657– 59 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding an injured construction worker employed by a subcontractor was not the statutory employee of a manufacturing company even when the manufacturer "prepare[d] the specific designs for certain parts of the facilities . . . overs[aw] such designs, approve[d] engineering plans and, in some instances, provide[d] supervisory personnel to provide general assistance in the contacting of the contractors and subcontractors and coordinating their activities").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.