Hayes v. LogistiCare Solutions, LLC

• Decision Date: 02 September 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 119,144
• Citation: 499 P.3d 1251
• Parties: Jerry HAYES, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Shannon Moyer, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant/Appellee, and Morgan 24 Hour Medical Escort, LLC, and Nicholas Decamp, Defendants.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

499 P.3d 1251

Jerry HAYES, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Shannon Moyer, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant/Appellee,andMorgan 24 Hour Medical Escort, LLC, and Nicholas Decamp, Defendants.

Case No. 119,144

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

FILED SEPTEMBER 2, 2021

Rehearing Granted: September 2, 2021

Mandate Issued: September 30, 2021

Michaal E. Carr, CARR & CARR, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellant.

William S. Leach, Jessica L. Dickerson, McAfee & Taft, a Professional Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellee.

SUBSTITUTE OPINION AFTER REHEARING THIS COURT'S PRIOR OPINION HAVING BEEN WITHDRAWN

Opinion by Bay Mitchell, Judge:

¶1 Plaintiff/Appellant Jerry Hayes (Hayes), as Special Administrator of the Estate of Shannon Moyer (Moyer), seeks review of the trial court's summary judgment order finding Defendant/Appellee LogistiCare Solutions, LLC (LogistiCare) was not the principal of Defendant Morgan 24 Hour Medical Escort, LLC (Morgan Medical). After de novo review, we agree that Morgan Medical was not the agent of LogistiCare. However, because the court failed to fully consider Hayes' alternative theory of liability, it erred by granting judgment to LogistiCare as a matter of law. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

¶2 SoonerRide is a state-wide, non-emergency transportation benefit available to members of Oklahoma's Medicaid program, SoonerCare. In 2018, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority awarded LogistiCare a contract to administer the SoonerRide program on its behalf. SoonerCare participants request transportation through LogistiCare, and LogistiCare assigns the job to a local third-party transportation provider. Morgan Medical is one of LogistiCare's contracted transportation providers.

¶3 Moyer was involved in an accident on February 24, 2018 while being transported by Nicholas Decamp, a driver for Morgan Medical. Decamp allegedly drove the vehicle without ensuring Moyer was belted into her wheelchair. During the trip, he braked suddenly, causing Moyer to fall out of her chair and break her leg. He transported her to the hospital, where she died thirty days later of "respiratory failure due to volume overload and pneumonia

" with multiple contributing factors.

¶4 Hayes, as special administrator of Moyer's estate, brought an action against Decamp, Morgan Medical, and LogistiCare seeking recovery for her wrongful death. The petition lists three alternative theories of liability against LogistiCare. First, Hayes alleged LogistiCare was liable because Morgan Medical and Decamp were its agents. Second, he claimed LogistiCare was liable for its negligence in hiring Morgan Medical. Finally, he argued LogistiCare was liable because the work performed was inherently dangerous.

¶5 Hayes moved for partial summary judgment against LogistiCare on the issue of agency, arguing Morgan Medical was LogistiCare's agent because LogistiCare exercised significant control over Morgan Medical. LogistiCare filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the same issue. It contended the parties' contract expressly stated Morgan Medical was an independent contractor. It argued the contract's "common sense" vehicle and driver safety provisions were required by LogistiCare's own contract with the State and did not demonstrate that LogistiCare had a right to control Morgan Medical. It claimed it had no control over Morgan Medical's daily operations and had made no decisions that were causally related to the accident. In a January 22, 2020 order, the trial court found there were no genuine issues of material fact, denied Hayes' motion for summary judgment, and granted LogistiCare's motion. Hayes appeals.

¶6 Summary judgment is appropriate where the record establishes no genuine issue of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Miller v. David Grace, Inc. , 2009 OK 49, ¶10, 212 P.3d 1223. Whether summary judgment was properly granted is a question of law which we will review de novo . Barker v. State Insurance Fund , 2001 OK 94, ¶7, 40 P.3d 463. Summary judgment should be denied if reasonable persons might reach different inferences or conclusions from the undisputed facts. Bird v. Coleman , 1997 OK 44, ¶20, 939 P.2d 1123. "In a de novo review, we have plenary, independent and non-deferential authority to determine whether the trial court erred in its application of the law and whether there is any genuine issue of material fact." Barker , ¶7.

¶7 Generally, "a person who performs work through an independent contractor is not liable for damages to third persons caused by the negligence of the contractor[.]" Le v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC , 2018 OK CIV APP 71, ¶5, 431 P.3d 366. A principal, however, is ordinarily bound by the acts of his agent. C.H. Stuart, Inc. v. Bennett , 1980 OK 135, ¶23, 617 P.2d 879. An agency relationship exists where two parties agree one is to act for the other. McGee v. Alexander , 2001 OK 78, ¶29, 37 P.3d 800. "The essential factor in any agency relationship is the principal's right to control the conduct of the agent." Murray County v. Homesales, Inc. , 2014 OK 52, ¶15, 330 P.3d 519. "The parties' status is revealed by considering the intent and effect of the contractual language in conjunction with the parties' actual conduct." Enterprise Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n , 1988 OK 91, n. 12, 768 P.2d 359. If the facts relied on to establish the existence of an agency are undisputed and conflicting inferences cannot be drawn, whether or not an agency exists "is [a] question of law for the court." Keel v. Titan Constr. Corp. , 1981 OK 148, ¶3, 639 P.2d 1228 (footnote omitted).

¶8 The agreement between LogistiCare and Morgan Medical explicitly states their relationship "is solely that of independent contractors" and that "nothing in this agreement or otherwise shall be construed or deemed to create any other relationship including one of employer and employee or principal and agent[.]" Hayes claims, notwithstanding this provision, that there are material questions of fact on the issue of agency because Morgan Medical and LogistiCare's contract is "quite detailed."

¶9 An extensive contract does not in and of itself create an agency relationship or a factual question as to whether one exists. As noted by the trial court, the contract is necessarily detailed because it involves a public service. Hayes does not explain which specific terms of the contract or actions of LogistiCare demonstrate LogistiCare's right to control Morgan Medical, and he does not dispute that Morgan Medical retained control of its daily operations, including the hiring and firing of drivers, which vehicles and drivers to use for particular transportation, and what route to take. While LogistiCare established certain policies and standards to which Morgan Medical was to adhere, we find such policies and standards do not rise to the level of supervision, dominion, and control over Morgan Medical's day-to-day activities as to make it LogistiCare's agent. Neither Hayes nor the record convinces us that...