Tyson Farms, Inc. v. Uninsured Employers' Fund

• Decision Date: 20 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 5, Sept. Term, 2020,5, Sept. Term, 2020
• Citation: Tyson Farms, Inc. v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 471 Md. 386, 241 A.3d 929 (Md. App. 2020)
• Parties: TYSON FARMS, INC., et al. v. UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

471 Md. 386

241 A.3d 929

TYSON FARMS, INC., et al.

v.UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND

No. 5, Sept. Term, 2020

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

November 20, 2020

Argued by Eric B. Wolff(David T. Martin, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA; Christopher S. Coleman, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ; Joel E. Ogden, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, MD), for Petitioners.

Argued by David K. Stesch, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Towson, MD), on brief, for Respondent.

Argued before: Barbera, C.J.; McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Biran, JJ.

Watts, J.

This case involves the question of whether an injured worker who is an employee of a chicken farm is also the employee of a company that through a contractual relationship with the owner of the farm furnishes chickens, feed, and other supplies, and instructions as to how to produce/grow the chickens.Stated otherwise, the issue concerns whether the owner of a chicken farm and the company that provides the chickens to be raised and ultimately retrieves/buys them from the farm owner are co-employers of a farm worker.More broadly, the case pertains to "employee" status in the workplace.This Court has recognized that "[a] worker may simultaneously be the employee of two employers."Whitehead v. Safway Steel Prod., Inc., 304 Md. 67, 79, 497 A.2d 803, 809(1985)(citation omitted).To determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists, this Court has established the following five factors: "(1) the power to select and hire the employee, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power to discharge, (4) the power to control the employee's conduct, and (5) whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer."Mackall v. Zayre Corp., 293 Md. 221, 230, 443 A.2d 98, 103(1982).The most important factor in that determination, and indeed the decisive one, is the factor of control.Seeid. at 230, 443 A.2d at 103.Ordinarily, the question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists is for the jury to determine.Seeid. at 230, 443 A.2d at 103.And, significantly, where the evidence supports an inference that more than one individual or company controls a person in the performance of a given duty, "the question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a question of fact to be determined by the jury."Id. at 230, 443 A.2d at 103(citations omitted).

In this case, Mauro Jimenez Garcia¹ sustained an occupational disease of the lungs while working and residing on a chicken farm in Worcester County, Maryland, owned by Dai K. Nguyen, Ind. t/a TN, LLC.²The chickens on the farm were raised for, and owned by, Tyson Farms, Inc., Petitioner.Pursuant to the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act,Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl.(1991, 2016 Repl. Vol.)("LE")§§ 9-101 to 9-1201, Garcia filed a claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission against Nguyen.Because Nguyen did not have workers' compensation insurance, the Uninsured Employers' Fund ("UEF"), Respondent,³ became involved in the claim.Subsequently, Garcia and UEF impleaded Tyson into the claim.Following a hearing, the Commission issued an award of compensation, determining that Garcia was a covered employee who sustained an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment and that Nguyen and Tyson were co-employers of Garcia.

Tyson sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Worcester County and requested a jury trial.The circuit court conducted a two-day jury trial, at which the sole issue was whether Tyson was a co-employer of Garcia.After the conclusion of the evidence in the case, both UEF and Tyson moved for judgment.The circuit court denied the motions.The jury returned a verdict in favor of Tyson, finding that Tyson was not Garcia's co-employer.

UEF noted an appeal, raising a single question for review—whether the circuit court erred in denying its motion for judgment.In a reported opinion, a majority of a panel of the Court of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment, determining that no reasonable inference could be drawn from the evidence other than that Tyson was Garcia's co-employer.SeeUninsured Employers' Fund v. Tyson Farms, Inc., 243 Md. App. 406, 422, 220 A.3d 429, 438-39(2019).The Court of Special Appeals concluded that "Tyson's control over [ ] Garcia's work was more than sufficient to establish an employment relationship as a matter of law[,]" reasoning that "Tyson's extensive involvement in, and control over, [ ] Garcia's day-to-day operation of the farm gave rise to an employment relationship as a matter of law."Id. at 416, 417, 220 A.3d at 435, 436.The Honorable Steven B. Gould dissented and stated that, "[i]n [his] view, there are sufficient facts in the record to allow a reasonable jury to determine, as it in fact did here, that Tyson was not [ ] Garcia's co-employer."Id. at 422, 220 A.3d at 439(Gould, J., dissenting).

Against this backdrop, we must decide whether the Court of Special Appeals was correct in concluding that no reasonable inference could be drawn from the evidence presented at trial other than that an employment relationship existed between Tyson and Garcia and that the evidence established the employment relationship as a matter of law.We hold that the Court of Special Appeals erred in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Tyson was Garcia's co-employer as a matter of law and in reversing the circuit court's judgment.Like Judge Gould, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find—as it did—that Tyson was not a co-employer of Garcia.The circuit court properly denied UEF's motion for judgment, as the evidence adduced at trial was susceptible to differing reasonable inferences, including the inference that Tyson did not exercise the control over Garcia necessary to be deemed a co-employer.Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

BACKGROUND

On June 27, 2014, Garcia filed a claim with the Commission against Nguyen.On the claim form, Garcia identified his work as a "chicken[ ]house tender" and stated that his occupational disease occurred by "[b]reathing dust, chemicals and ammonia in [the] chicken[ ]house[, s]pen[ding] 7-10 hours per day six days per week[, p]oor ventilation."It became clear that Nguyen was an uninsured employer, i.e. , Nguyen did not carry workers' compensation insurance, and UEF was added as a party.Both Garcia and UEF filed requests to implead Tyson, a self-insured employer, and Tyson was added as a party to the claim.

The Commission held a hearing and thereafter issued an award of compensation, determining that Garcia was a covered employee who sustained an occupational disease of hypersensitivity pneumonitis⁴ and interstitial disease⁵ arising out of and in the course of his employment.The Commission found that both Nguyen and Tyson were co-employers of Garcia at the time of his occupational disease.The Commission ordered Nguyen and Tyson to pay for Garcia's "causally related medical expenses" and to pay compensation for temporary total disability.

Tyson filed in the circuit court a petition for judicial review, contending, among other things, that the Commission erroneously found that the company was a co-employer and jointly and severally liable with Nguyen for payment of benefits and medical expenses.Tyson requested a jury trial.⁶On June 19 and 20, 2018, the circuit court conducted a jury trial.The sole issue before the jury was whether Tyson was a co-employer of Garcia.At trial, the following evidence was adduced.

Tyson is said to be the largest chicken company in the world and sells chicken but does not own any chicken farms.Instead, Tyson contracts with individual farmers, in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and elsewhere, to raise chickens that it owns.The farm owners operate the farms, and the chickens are raised in flocks according to Tyson's guidelines.The owners may manage the farms themselves or employ workers, sometimes called managers, who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the farms.The end goal is for Tyson to retrieve the chickens from the farm owners for a price and have them ready for sale as food to the public.

In 2009, Garcia began working on the subject chicken farm.He was hired by Terry Ung("Mr. Ung"), who was the owner and manager of the farm at the time and was raising chickens for Tyson.When Garcia was hired, he took care of chickens and performed miscellaneous work and routine maintenance, such as removing dead chickens, doing yardwork, changing lightbulbs, and fixing doors.Mr. Ung became ill and had to undergo lung surgery, and Garcia began managing the farm.At the end of 2009, Mr. Ung died and his widow, Lee Ung("Ms. Ung"), who had no experience raising chickens, became the owner of the farm.

Because of Ms. Ung's lack of experience in raising chickens, Tyson representatives taught Garcia how to operate the farm.Garcia assumed day-to-day responsibility for the chickens and began residing at the farm.A few years later, in 2013, Ms. Ung sold the farm to Nguyen, who entered into a contract with Tyson.Nguyen worked in information technology in Virginia at the time, where he resided, and purchased the farm as an investment.Nguyen had no experience or training in raising chickens or operating a chicken farm.Nguyen kept Garcia on to manage the farm.

As a witness for Tyson, Ronald Watkins, senior manager of live production for Tyson, testified about Tyson's relationship with chicken farms and its contract.Watkins testified that the subject contract is a standard contract that outlines Tyson's obligations.Watkins testified that, under the contract, the owner/grower, Nguyen, is expected to provide housing for the chickens and the day-to-day husbandry or operation of the farm using technical advice from Tyson.Watkins testified that, under the contract, the owner/grower of the chickens is not considered an employee of Tyson and that this is...