Search CompleteMarkets

...e even when the borrower may pay a flat fee for the equipment and use of the o...

...e even when the borrower may pay a flat fee for the equipment and use of the o...

...aknesses as large overhangs, large flat outer walls/gables or wood frame const...

... to show a transfer of control over the employee. It doesn't matter that the lending employer pays the employee. A perfect example occurs when the borrowing employer rents a piece of heavy construction machinery from the lending employer and operator of that equipment. In this situation, an injury sustained by the employee should be the responsibility of the borrowing employer. This is true even when the borrower may pay a flat fee for the equipment and use of the operator. In one case, one employer sued another for contributions to Comp benefits. Both employers carried Workers' Comp insurance. Such a suit is permissible, as long as it doesn't delay the payment of benefits to the claimant. A borrowing employer can be held liable for Workers' Comp benefits if it exercises control over the claimant at the time ... necessary piping. When the machinery arrived, the second contractor hired the claimant to install the burners and hook up the pressing machines. The second contractor would pick up the claimant every morning and drop him off at the job site. The second contractor instructed the claimant on what had to be done and supplied all necessary materials. The claimant, an alcoholic, went out for two shots and a glass of beer on the day of his injury. Later, he fell while climbing a ladder. The court held that the shop owner could not be the statutory employer of the claimant since the owner did not control the claimant's work. The second contractor, who hired the claimant, qualified as the statutory employer. That fact that the statute requires the general contractor to make sure that the subcontractor ...

... to show a transfer of control over the employee. It doesn't matter that the lending employer pays the employee. A perfect example occurs when the borrowing employer rents a piece of heavy construction machinery from the lending employer and operator of that equipment. In this situation, an injury sustained by the employee should be the responsibility of the borrowing employer. This is true even when the borrower may pay a flat fee for the equipment and use of the operator. In one case, one employer sued another for contributions to Comp benefits. Both employers carried Workers Comp insurance. Such a suit is permissible, as long as it doesn't delay the payment of benefits to the claimant. A borrowing employer can be held liable for Workers Comp benefits if it exercises control over the claimant at the time of an ... necessary piping. When the machinery arrived, the second contractor hired the claimant to install the burners and hook up the pressing machines. The second contractor would pick up the claimant every morning and drop him off at the job site. The second contractor instructed the claimant on what had to be done and supplied all necessary materials. The claimant, an alcoholic, went out for two shots and a glass of beer on the day of his injury. Later, he fell while climbing a ladder. The court held that the shop owner could not be the statutory employer of the claimant since the owner did not control the claimant's work. The second contractor, who hired the claimant, qualified as the statutory employer. That fact that the statute requires the general contractor to make sure that the subcontractor ...