Rodriguez v. Lynn Stanley Carr

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 17, 2009
DocketI.C. NO. 789811.
StatusPublished

This text of Rodriguez v. Lynn Stanley Carr (Rodriguez v. Lynn Stanley Carr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rodriguez v. Lynn Stanley Carr, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Deluca and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties. The Full Commission hereby affirms with minor modifications the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Deluca.

***********
RULING
On August 15, 2008 Deputy Commissioner Deluca conducted a teleconference with counsel for defendants and counsel for Plaintiff concerning the need of Plaintiff to attend the hearing in Goldsboro on August 25, 2008. Defendants objected to proceeding with the hearing if Plaintiff was not going to attend the hearing as defendants desired the opportunity to examine or *Page 2 cross-examine Plaintiff. Plaintiff's counsel indicated that Plaintiff had not been subpoenaed and was located in Mexico and it would be burdensome for him to come to North Carolina for a hearing; however, Plaintiff's counsel offered to make Plaintiff available for a deposition or telephonic deposition should defendants wish to take his testimony. Deputy Commissioner Deluca overruled defendants' objection and allowed the hearing to go forward as scheduled on August 25, 2008 and further allowed the parties to depose the Plaintiff should they so desire.

***********
The only issue for determination at this time relates to the proper calculation of Plaintiff's average weekly wage under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(5).

***********
The Full Commission finds as a fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties as:

STIPULATIONS
1. On September 4, 2007, an employee-employer relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant-Employer.

2. On September 4, 2007, Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company was the carrier on the risk for Defendant-Employer.

3. It is stipulated that all parties have been correctly designated and that there is no question as to the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

4. On September 4, 2007, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant-Employer as a seasonal H2A worker.

5. On September 4, 2007, Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident. *Page 3

6. Plaintiff received weekly indemnity benefits in the amount of $252.57 from September 5, 2007 through approximately November 21, 2007. Since approximately November 21, 2007, Plaintiff has received weekly indemnity benefits in the amount of $60.72, with said benefits presently continuing.

7. At the hearing before the deputy commissioner, the parties stipulated into evidence the following documents: (1) Pre-Trial Agreement as Stipulated Exhibit 1; (2) Plaintiff's wage records and wage records for a similar employee as Stipulated Exhibit 2; (3) Plaintiff's employment contract with the North Carolina Grower's Association as Stipulated Exhibit 3; and (4) all Industrial Commission forms filed in this matter as Stipulated Exhibit 4.

***********
Based upon all the competent evidence from the record, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the deputy commissioner, Plaintiff was a 22 year-old man from Mexico.

2. Plaintiff was jointly employed by Lynn Carr Farms, the North Carolina Growers Association (hereinafter "N.C.G.A"), and all of the members of the N.C.G.A.

3. Defendant-Employer, Lynn Carr Farms, is engaged in the business of farming. Defendant-Employer grows, among other crops, tobacco.

4. As required by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, Defendant-Employer applied for and obtained workers' compensation insurance from Defendant-Insurer, which was in effect on September 4, 2007. Specifically, the policy in effect on September 4, 2007 came into effect on December 1, 2006 and remained in effect for all time periods relevant *Page 4 to this matter. The workers' compensation premium for Defendant-Employer was $5,605 for 2007.

5. Pursuant to North Carolina Department of Insurance Regulations, the insurance premium charged by Defendant-Insurer was based, in part, upon gross wages of $123,212.06 paid to Defendant-Employer's employees during the policy period (December 1, 2006 through December 1, 2007). Of the $123,212.06 paid to Defendant-Employer's employees during the policy period, $2,233.00 reportedly consisted of wages paid to Plaintiff.

6. The insurance regulations applicable to workers' compensation premiums require that premiums be calculated using the actual wages paid to employees during the policy period. Based upon the $123,212.06 wages paid by Defendant-Employer during the policy period, Defendant-Insurer charged Defendant-Employer a premium of $5,605.00 for workers' compensation coverage.

7. Per insurance regulations, Defendant-Insurer was prohibited from charging any higher premium. Defendant-Insurer was not allowed to charge a larger premium based upon a wage figure of its own choosing because insurance regulations require premium calculations to be based upon actual wages paid during the policy period.

8. Mr. Carr of Lynn Carr Farms used the N.C.G.A. to locate and legally hire Plaintiff to work for Lynn Carr Farms because Mr. Carr would otherwise be unable to locate enough local laborers to plant and harvest his crops.

9. Workers such as Plaintiff are brought to work under a joint employment contract because it is beneficial to the various growers who use the H-2A program through the N.C.G.A. The benefits of the joint employment contract to farms such as Lynn Carr Farms are numerous. There is a complicated and extended labor certification process which is required to be *Page 5 completed before a foreign farm worker may be brought in to work on a farm here in North Carolina. The labor certification process would require the farmer to not only locate workers in Mexico, but to interview potential workers already in the United States. Most farm operations are too busy to go through the labor certification process. By using the joint employer approach offered by the N.C.G.A., Lynn Carr Farms avoids having to perform the labor certification process. In addition, Lynn Carr Farms and other farms avoid the complexities of obtaining a visa for each foreign laborer. The N.C.G.A. will complete the necessary paperwork to obtain a joint employer visa from the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. State Department. The N.C.G.A will also train the foreign workers in pesticide safety and other farm safety to comply with worker protection standards applicable to farms such as Lynn Carr Farms. The N.C.G.A. completes Federal Form I-9s for Lynn Carr Farms and other growers. This type of use of the joint employment contract provides flexibility to ensure farms such as Lynn Carr Farms will have enough workers.

10. In 2007, the N.C.G.A. brought in foreign farm laborers to work starting on February 15, 2007 and ending on December 15, 2007, a period of 43.285 weeks.

11. The N.C.G.A. joint employment contract allowed an employee such as Mr. Periañez to start working on February 15, 2007 on one farm and continue working on various farms through December 15, 2007. Even if an employee's visa expired on November 5, 2007, the N.C.G.A.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(5)
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rodriguez v. Lynn Stanley Carr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-lynn-stanley-carr-ncworkcompcom-2009.