Lang v. Edward J. Lamothe Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1985 |
| Citation | 479 N.E.2d 208,20 Mass.App.Ct. 231 |
| Parties | Frederick R. LANG, Jr. v. EDWARD J. LAMOTHE COMPANY, INC. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
John P. Ryan, Plymouth (John A. Eklund, Boston, with him), for defendant.
Paul R. Sugarman, Boston, for plaintiff.
Before BROWN, KAPLAN and FINE, JJ.
In this case we are asked to construe the provision in G.L. c. 152, § 15, St.1971, c. 941, § 1, permitting an action at law to be brought for "damages for personal injuries ... by an employee against any person other than the insured person employing such employee and liable for payment of the compensation provided by this chapter...."
The case was tried on a statement of agreed facts. The plaintiff, an employee of Peakload, Inc., a company engaged in supplying temporary labor to various business establishments, was injured while working for the defendant on its premises. The plaintiff was supervised by an employee of the defendant. At all material times, both Peakload and the defendant carried worker's compensation coverage in accordance with G.L. c. 152. The plaintiff's wages had been paid by Peakload, and he has received compensation benefits for his injuries from the compensation insurer of Peakload. There was no agreement between the defendant and Peakload concerning payment of worker's compensation benefits to personnel supplied by Peakload to the defendant.
A judge of the Superior Court rejected the defendant's claim that the applicable provisions of G.L. c. 152 bar recovery and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The judge reasoned that, in the circumstances presented here, for an employer to be immune under c. 152 from an employee's common law action, that employer must satisfy a two-part test: "(1) the employer must be an insured person liable for the payment of compensation, and (2) the employer must be the direct employer of the employee." The judge then concluded that the defendant was not immune from suit under c. 152 because it was not liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff. We concur. That ruling is entirely consistent with the unambiguous language of G.L. c. 152, § 15, as amplified by § 18 of that same chapter. See Searcy v. Paul, 20 Mass.App. 134, 138-139, 478 N.E.2d 1275 (1985). See generally Locke, Workmen's Compensation § 150 (2d ed. 1981).
The parties have stipulated that Peakload was the plaintiff's general employer and the defendant was his special employer; therefore, pursuant to § 18 of c. 152, as amended through St.1969, c. 755, § 2, Peakload, as general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Molina v. State Garden, Inc.
...begin by observing, as did the motion judge, that there is no Massachusetts case squarely on point. In Lang v. Edward J. Lamothe Co., 20 Mass.App.Ct. 231, 232–233, 479 N.E.2d 208 (1985) (Lang ), and Numberg v. GTE Transport, Inc., 34 Mass.App.Ct. 904, 905, 607 N.E.2d 1 (1993) (Numberg ), th......
-
Wentworth v. Henry C. Becker Custom Bldg. Ltd.
...payment of compensation, and (2) the employer [is] the direct employer of the employee” (emphasis added). Lang v. Edward J. Lamothe Co., 20 Mass.App.Ct. 231, 232, 479 N.E.2d 208 (1985).4 “Contemporary comment ... shows that the [1971 amendment to] the statute was taken by text and periodica......
-
Fleming v. Shaheen Bros., Inc.
...whether an employer is immune from liability under the workers' compensation statute, G.L. c. 152. See Lang v. Edward J. Larnothe Co., 20 Mass.App.Ct. 231, 232, 479 N.E.2d 208 (1985). "[A] direct employment relationship must exist, and `the employer must be an insured person liable for the ......
-
Benoit v. Test Sys., Inc.
...does not require a borrowing employer to obtain workers' compensation coverage for borrowed employees. See Lang v. Edward J. Lamothe Co., 20 Mass.App.Ct. 231, 479 N.E.2d 208, 209, review denied, 395 Mass. 1104, 482 N.E.2d 328 (1985). Consequently, Massachusetts declines to extend the benefi......