Soto, Victor v. DENNY PATTERSON, JR. d/b/a PATTERSON CONSTRUCTION

2022 TN WC 53
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedJuly 8, 2022
Docket2021-08-0937
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 TN WC 53 (Soto, Victor v. DENNY PATTERSON, JR. d/b/a PATTERSON CONSTRUCTION) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Soto, Victor v. DENNY PATTERSON, JR. d/b/a PATTERSON CONSTRUCTION, 2022 TN WC 53 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2022).

Opinion

FILED Jul 08, 2022 02:44 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT MEMPHIS

VICTOR SOTO, ) Docket No. 2021-08-0937 Claimant, ) v. ) DENNY PATTERSON, JR. d/b/a ) State File No. 800517-2021 PATTERSON CONSTRUCTION, ) Respondent, ) And ) ARCH INSURANCE CO., ) Judge Deana C. Seymour Carrier. )

________________________________________________________________________

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

The Court held an Expedited Hearing on June 15, 2022. Mr. Soto claimed workers’ compensation benefits for injuries he sustained while working for Patterson Construction on August 11, 2021. Patterson Construction denied his claim, contending Mr. Soto was a subcontractor, not an employee. For the reasons below, the Court holds that Mr. Soto did not establish he is likely to prove that he was Patterson’s employee and denies his requested relief at this time.

History of Claim

Mr. Soto claimed that he fell from a ladder and hit his head on August 11, 2021, while installing seismic framing for Patterson Construction. He suffered significant head and brain trauma and underwent multiple surgeries, with prolonged hospitalization and extensive speech and occupational therapies. The Court saw that Mr. Soto had trouble recalling specific details concerning his accident and his relationship with Patterson Construction. 1 However, with help from counsel, he testified as follows.

Denny Patterson met with Mr. Soto in early August and hired him to perform

1 Mr. Soto’s attorney advised that the head trauma caused aphasia that hinders his ability to understand and communicate. 1 seismic framing on a construction project at a rate of $10.00 per hour. 2 He stated that Mr. Patterson never asked him for proof of workers’ compensation insurance. Mr. Soto testified that Patterson Construction supplied most of the tools, equipment, and materials to do the job. However, he brought his own helmet, shoes, hammer, measuring tape, and tool belt to the project.

Mr. Soto recalled Mr. Patterson telling him which work to perform and what time to begin. However, he later testified that nobody told him what time to get to the job site, but that everyone showed up at 7 a.m. Mr. Soto testified that “Wynne” worked for Patterson Construction and brought him materials, told him what time to be at work, recorded his time, and paid him in cash. 3

Mr. Soto further testified that nobody instructed or trained him on how to do the work but said that he helped Patterson Construction’s other employees. Mr. Soto never hired anyone to help him with his job. He stated that Mr. Patterson was on the job site and could inspect and correct his work.

As for the accident, Mr. Soto recalled that he was on a ladder, installing seismic framing inside a hot building. He fell as he was coming down the ladder and walked a few steps, so that someone outside could see him. He has no further memory of that day.

Patterson Construction disagreed with Mr. Soto’s account and denied his claim, arguing that Mr. Soto was an independent contractor, not an employee.

Denny Patterson, owner of Patterson Construction, explained that he contracted with L3 Properties to “provide framing labor, nails and screws” for an apartment construction project. Per his practice, he retained subcontractors for the framing work.

Mr. Patterson testified that Mr. Soto approached him about working on the construction site in early August. 4 He knew Mr. Soto because they worked together on a framing project eight or nine years earlier when his father owned Patterson Construction.

Mr. Patterson testified that when his father owned Patterson Construction, he hired laborers for $10.00 per hour. After his father died, he stopped hiring employees but instead retained subcontractors for each project. Mr. Patterson said he offered to pay Mr. Soto a contract price of $416.00 to install seismic framing. He also asked Mr. Soto for proof of insurance, which Mr. Soto agreed to provide but never did.

Mr. Soto appeared at the construction site a few days later with some tools, a hard hat, and his work shoes. Patterson Construction supplied nails and screws, and L3 provided 2 Mr. Soto’s brief states the agreed hourly rate was $15.00 per hour. 3 Mr. Soto did not mention “Wynne’s” last name.

2 construction materials.

Mr. Patterson testified that Patterson Construction had no employees and operated exclusively with subcontractors. Mr. Patterson did not provide equipment or benefits. 5 He was paid by the job and priced the work based on square footage.

Although Mr. Patterson did not supervise Mr. Soto’s work, he did inspect it to ensure it followed the local building code. Mr. Patterson expected to pay Mr. Soto by check after he finished the framing.

Mr. Patterson was at the job site when Mr. Soto fell, although he did not see it. He attended to Mr. Soto and asked L3’s job superintendent to call 9-1-1. An ambulance took Mr. Soto to the hospital.

Since Mr. Soto could not complete the job, Patterson Construction did not pay him.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

At this hearing, Mr. Soto must present sufficient evidence from which this Court can determine that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that he is an employee, rather than an independent contractor. See McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

To recover workers’ compensation benefits, the claimant must be an employee and not an independent contractor. Bargery v. Obion Grain Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tenn. 1990). The Court must consider the following factors when making this determination:

(i) The right to control the conduct of the work; (ii) The right of termination; (iii) The method of payment; (iv) The freedom to select and hire helpers; (v) The furnishing of tools and equipment; (vi) Self-scheduling of working hours; and (vii) The freedom to offer services to other entities[.]

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(D)(i) (2021). No single factor is conclusive. Smiley v. Four Seasons Coach Leasing, Inc., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 28, at *10-11 (July 15, 2016).

The Tennessee Supreme Court explained that an independent contractor is “one who

5 Mr. Patterson knew Wynne Hendrix, who did not work for him but for L3 and brought materials on a forklift when needed. 3 undertakes to produce a given result without being in any way controlled as to the methods by which he attains that result.” Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584, 587 (Tenn. 1991). Here, Mr. Patterson told Mr. Soto where to install the seismic framing, but Mr. Soto controlled the work. He did not train Mr. Soto to install the framing. Rather, Mr. Soto learned on his own from other workers at the job site. He did not supervise the work but only inspected it to ensure it met building codes. Thus, the Court finds that the right to control the conduct of work favors a finding that Mr. Soto was an independent contractor.

As for the right to terminate subcontractors like Mr. Soto, Mr. Patterson felt he could do so but only for good reason, such as non-compliance with building codes. However, he testified that he would first give the subcontractor notice and ask him to correct the problem. Thus, the Court finds this factor is neutral in this analysis.

The method of payment supports an independent contractor relationship because Mr. Patterson offered to pay Mr.

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

Related

Galloway v. Memphis Drum Service
822 S.W.2d 584 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)
Bargery v. Obion Grain Co.
785 S.W.2d 118 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 TN WC 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-victor-v-denny-patterson-jr-dba-patterson-construction-tennworkcompcl-2022.