Willis, Earl D. v. Express Towing , 2016 TN WC 304 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •             TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
    IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
    AT NASHVILLE
    EARL D. WILLIS,                                )   Docket No. 30458-2016
    Employee,                            )
    v.                                             )   State File No. 2016-06-0702
    )
    EXPRESS TOWING,                                )   Judge Joshua Davis Baker
    Uninsured Employer.                   )
    EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER FOR TEMPORARY DISABILITY
    AND MEDICAL BENEFITS
    This claim came before the Court on November 30, 2016, on the Request for
    Expedited Hearing filed by Express Towing pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated
    section 50-6-239 (2015). The present focus of this case is whether Express Towing was
    required to provide workers’ compensation insurance on the date of Mr. Willis’ work
    injury based upon its employment of five or more persons. For the reasons set forth
    below, the Court holds Express Towing employed five or more persons and was,
    therefore, required to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Willis.
    Claim History
    July 19, 2016 Evidentiary Hearing and Appeal
    This is the second expedited hearing on this claim. The Court convened the first
    on July 19, 2016, to consider Mr. Willis’ request for temporary disability and medical
    benefits. At the hearing, Mr. Willis testified Express Towing had employed him as a
    tow-truck driver for three weeks at the time of his injury and paid him an average of
    $750.00 per week. On March 18, 2016, at approximately one o’clock in the morning,
    Mr. Willis received a call from Express Towing’s dispatcher to retrieve a disabled
    vehicle. After completing his work, he returned home in Express Towing’s tow truck,
    which he routinely kept at his residence when he was on call. While getting out of the
    truck, Mr. Willis’ left foot caught on the truck’s step and, as he fell to the ground, his foot
    and leg twisted and broke his ankle in two places.
    In addition to testimony concerning the accident, Mr. Willis also testified that
    Express Towing employed more than five people at the time of his injury. Express
    Towing did not appear at the hearing and was not represented by counsel at that time.
    After the expedited hearing concluded, the Court learned for the first time that
    representatives of Express Towing were waiting in the lobby but did not come to the
    hearing room.
    On August 9, 2016, the Court entered an interlocutory order requiring Express
    Towing to provide Mr. Willis temporary disability and medical benefits. Express Towing
    then hired counsel, who appealed the interlocutory order to the Workers’ Compensation
    Appeals Board. After filing the appeal, Express Towing filed a motion to amend the
    expedited hearing order with this Court seeking various forms of relief. The Court Clerk
    forwarded the Motion to the Appeals Board who remanded the case to this Court for
    consideration of the Motion.
    After the Appeals Board remanded the case, this Court denied Express Towing’s
    motion to amend the previous order. However, this Court stayed enforcement of the
    initial expedited hearing order after Express Towing filed a new request for expedited
    hearing to present evidence on the number of workers it employed at the time of Mr.
    Willis’ accident.
    November 30, 2016 Evidentiary Hearing
    The question of whether Express Towing was required to provide workers’
    compensation insurance was the only substantive legal issue to be determined at the
    hearing. Regarding that issue, the Court heard testimony from seven people associated
    with Express Towing, its operation, and its business locations.
    Craig Allen Mann, proprietor of Express Towing, testified that he and one
    employee, James Mullins, drive two tow trucks for Express Towing. He said he operates
    Express Towing out of his home in Gallatin, where he has a shop. Mr. Mann also
    testified that Michael Copeland rents the premises located at 625 Cornelia Court in
    Nashville and operates two tow trucks in the name of Express Towing from that location.
    In return for using the Express Towing business license and name, Mr. Copeland pays
    Mr. Mann thirty percent of his income from the Express Towing operation in Nashville.
    Mr. Mann said he doesn’t “get into what [Mr. Copeland] does as far as around the shop
    and who he has do things for him.” Mr. Mann acknowledged he signed an affidavit
    containing the following statement, “Mike Copeland paid Earl Willis, his wife—Ann
    Copeland—who keeps books for him, and himself.”
    Mr. Copeland testified that he does not own a company but does own two tow
    trucks that he leases to Mr. Mann, who provides insurance and a business license for the
    tow trucks’ operation. He testified that he does not have any employees currently but
    2
    acknowledged Mr. Willis was an employee at the time of his injury. Mr. Copeland
    admitted that he pays his girlfriend, Ann Taubert, for working at the Nashville towing lot.
    According to his testimony, there are two offices and two phone lines. One office area
    and phone line is used for his personal business while the other office area and phone line
    is used for Express Towing’s business. When asked who sits in the Express Towing
    office, Mr. Copeland responded, “Jarrell will sit in there sometimes at the desk.” When
    asked if the phone for Express Towing was in that office, Mr. Copeland answered
    affirmatively.
    Mr. Mullins testified that he is employed by Express Towing to drive a tow truck
    and “to take care of everything in Nashville.” He testified that he brings vehicles to the
    Nashville lot and sometimes answers the phone if no one else is available to answer it.
    When he does have to answer the phone, he testified that “whichever line [he]
    answer[s],” he calls Mr. Mann because “everything is his.” He finds out from Mr. Mann
    if he “need[s] to run the call, or [if it is] something that needs to be done by somebody
    else.”
    Steven Allbright testified that he rode in the tow truck with Mr. Willis on a few
    occasions to ensure Mr. Willis was capable of performing the job. When asked who had
    requested he ride with Mr. Willis, Mr. Allbright responded that he could not remember.
    He then, however, stated that he rides along sometimes as a favor “when Allen gets a new
    driver or something and he’s not sure [about the driver’s capability].” He testified that he
    does not receive any pay when he rides with a driver.
    Irby Trotter testified that he has an arrangement with Mr. Mann to perform
    maintenance occasionally on vehicles at the Nashville lot in exchange for permission to
    operate an auto-mechanic business on the premises.
    Ronnie Welker testified that he lives on the lot in Nashville in Mr. Copeland’s bus
    and performs the occasional odd job to maintain the property. Mr. Welker testified he
    also assists Mr. Trotter with vehicle maintenance.
    Michael Jarrell testified that he lives on the Nashville lot and believes that Mr.
    Mann owns the towing lot. When asked about his “payment arrangement with Mr.
    Mann,” Mr. Jarrell responded that he answers the phone, releases impounded cars and
    watches the property. He testified that he has lived on the property without paying rent
    for at least a year. When asked if living there rent-free was contingent upon working for
    Express Towing, Mr. Jarrell responded, “No, they’re just being good to me.”
    3
    Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
    The only issue to be determined at this expedited hearing is whether Express
    Towing is an employer under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Mr. Willis bears the
    burden of proving Express Towing qualified as an employer, thereby triggering its
    obligation to provide workers’ compensation insurance. See Winchester v. Seay, 
    219 Tenn. 321
    , 409 S.W.2d. 378, 381 (Tenn. 1966); King v. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co., 
    296 S.W.2d 3
    , 7 (Tenn. 1927). As explained below, the Court finds Express Towing is an
    employer under the Workers’ Compensation Law and was, therefore, required to provide
    workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Willis.
    I.     The Sumner and Davidson County towing lots are one business.
    In resolving the disputed issue, the Court first addresses the business relationship
    between Mr. Copeland and Express Towing. The Court finds the two operations are the
    same business. Although Mr. Copeland owns the two tow trucks used by the Nashville
    operation, he cannot use his trucks to conduct business without using the business license
    and insurance provided by Express Towing. Indeed, the Metropolitan Government of
    Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee Code of Ordinances prohibits operating a
    wrecker service without “obtaining and keeping in force a license from the commission
    to operate a wrecker service.” Metro Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn.
    Code of Ordinances § 6.80.110.
    In his testimony, when asked about his business, Mr. Copeland responded, “I don’t
    have a company.” The Court agrees. The business in operation at the Nashville location
    belongs to Mr. Mann, the owner of Express Towing. Based on testimony and affidavits
    introduced at the hearing, Mr. Mann makes decisions affecting the Nashville location,
    such as asking for supervision of a new driver, deciding who responds to calls, and in
    some cases, deciding who uses the property. Mr. Mullins testified that he calls Mr. Mann
    for direction if he fields a call at the Nashville lot, no matter which line he might answer,
    because “everything is [Mann’s].” Mr. Trotter testified that he and Mr. Mann reached the
    arrangement to operate his business rent-free on the Nashville lot in exchange for
    providing mechanic services to Express Towing. Mike Jarrell, who resides on the lot,
    testified that he believes Mr. Mann owns the Nashville lot. In his affidavit, Mr. Mann
    referred to the Nashville location as “my lot.”
    II.    Express Towing employs five or more persons
    Having found that the Sumner and Davidson County operations of Express
    Towing constitute one business, the Court must now determine whether the business
    meets the definition of an employer under the Workers’ Compensation Law and,
    therefore, was required to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Under the
    Workers’ Compensation Law, the term “employer,” defined in section 50-6-102(13),
    4
    “includes any individual, firm, association or corporation . . . using the services of not
    less than five (5) persons for pay.” Unless there are five or more “persons [who] are
    regularly employed,” the Workers’ Compensation Law will not apply. Tenn. Code Ann.
    § 50-6-106(5). “Payment may be found in anything of value, which may or may not be
    wages or a salary.” Garner v. Reed, 
    856 S.W.2d 698
    , 701 (Tenn. 1993). On “the first
    day that five or more persons, who may be classified as regular employees under the act,
    work for an employer, coverage attaches and may not be withdrawn in subsequent days
    solely by the device of reducing the work force to four or less.” Whitehead v. Watkins,
    
    741 S.W.2d 327
    , 328 (Tenn. 1987)(quoting Ganus v. Asher, 
    571 S.W.2d 756
    , 759 (Tenn.
    1978)). Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(A) (2015) defines “employee” to
    include “every person . . . in the service of an employer . . . under any contract of hire or
    apprenticeship, written or implied.” The Court finds that Express Towing had six
    employees.
    It is undisputed that Mr. Willis was an employee of Express Towing at the time of
    his injury. In addition to Mr. Willis, the Court also finds that Mr. Mann, Mr. Mullins and
    Mr. Copeland were also employees. Mr. Mann, the business owner, testified he receives
    “a percentage of the proceeds” from the operation of Express Towing and drives a tow
    truck regularly. Mr. Mullins testified he works for Express Towing, and Mr. Mann
    corroborated his testimony. Mr. Copeland drives a tow truck for Express Towing and
    also receives a percentage of the money made for each call.
    Ms. Taubert was also an employee of Express Towing. While Mr. Mann provided
    little detail about the days and hours Ms. Taubert works, he admitted in his affidavit that
    Mr. Copeland paid Ms. Taubert to “keep books” and perform office duties at the
    Nashville location. Further, Mr. Copeland acknowledged in his testimony that he gave
    Ms. Taubert money in exchange for helping him with the towing business. While Mr.
    Copeland attempted to minimalize Ms. Taubert’s involvement, the Court finds she is
    regularly employed based upon Mr. Mann’s affidavit.
    Mr. Jarrell was also an employee of Express Towing. Although he was not paid
    money for his service, his “arrangement” was to answer phones, release impounded cars,
    and watch the property in return for living on the lot rent-free. Further, the Court finds
    that Mr. Jarrell was regularly employed to perform duties that furthered the business of
    Express Towing. Mr. Jarrell regularly answered the phone and manned the Express
    Towing office while living on the lot. In this Court’s view, Mr. Jarrell’s rent-free living
    arrangement served as compensation for his work at Express Towing.
    Accordingly, the Court finds that Express Towing had six employees including
    Mr. Willis at the time of his injury. Because it had six employees, Express Towing meets
    the definition of employer and was required to provide those employees workers’
    compensation insurance coverage.
    5
    IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
    1. The Court orders the previous order of August 9, 2016, be enforced.
    2. This claim is set for a scheduling hearing on February 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.
    (CDT). You must call 615-741-2113 or toll free at 855-874-0474 to participate in
    the Initial Hearing. Failure to participate in the hearing may result in
    determination of issues without your input.
    3. Unless interlocutory appeal of the Expedited Hearing Order is filed, compliance
    with this Order must occur no later than seven business days from the date of entry
    of this Order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3)
    (2015). The Insurer or Self-Insured Employer must submit confirmation of
    compliance      with    this     Order    to    the    Bureau    by     email     to
    WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov no later than the seventh business day after
    entry of this Order. Failure to submit the necessary confirmation within the period
    of compliance may result in a penalty assessment for non-compliance.
    4. For questions regarding compliance, please contact the Workers’ Compensation
    Compliance Unit via email WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov or by calling (615)
    253-1471.
    ENTERED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.
    ________________________________________
    Judge Joshua Davis Baker
    Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
    6
    Right to Appeal:
    Tennessee Law allows any party who disagrees with this Expedited Hearing Order
    to appeal the decision to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. To file a Notice of
    Appeal, you must:
    1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal.”
    2. File the completed form with the Court Clerk within seven business days of the
    date the Workers’ Compensation Judge entered the Expedited Hearing Order.
    3. Serve a copy of the Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal upon the opposing party.
    4. The appealing party is responsible for payment of a filing fee in the amount of
    $75.000. Within ten calendar days after the filing of a notice of appeal, payment
    must be received by check, money order, or credit card payment. Payments can be
    made in person at any Bureau office or by United States mail, hand-delivery, or
    other delivery service. In the alternative, the appealing party may file an Affidavit
    of Indigency, on a form prescribed by the Bureau, seeking a waiver of the filing
    fee. The Affidavit of Indigency may be filed contemporaneously with the Notice
    of Appeal or must be filed within ten calendar days thereafter. The Appeals Board
    will consider the Affidavit of Indigency and issue an Order granting or denying
    the request for a waiver of the filing fee as soon thereafter as is practicable.
    Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency in
    accordance with this section shall result in dismissal of the appeal.
    5. The parties, having the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal,
    may request, from the Court Clerk, the audio recording of the hearing for the
    purpose of having a transcript prepared by a licensed court reporter and filing it
    with the Court Clerk within ten calendar days of the filing of the Expedited
    Hearing Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint statement of
    the evidence within ten calendar days of the filing of the Expedited Hearing
    Notice of Appeal. The statement of the evidence must convey a complete and
    accurate account of what transpired in the Court of Workers’ Compensation
    Claims and must be approved by the workers’ compensation judge before the
    record is submitted to the clerk of the Appeals Board.
    6. If the appellant elects to file a position statement in support of the interlocutory
    appeal, the appellant shall file such position statement with the Court Clerk within
    five business days of the expiration of the time to file a transcript or statement of
    the evidence, specifying the issues presented for review and including any
    argument in support thereof. A party opposing the appeal shall file a response, if
    any, with the Court Clerk within five business days of the filing of the appellant’s
    7
    position statement. All position statements pertaining to an appeal of an
    interlocutory order should include: (1) a statement summarizing the facts of the
    case from the evidence admitted during the expedited hearing; (2) a statement
    summarizing the disposition of the case as a result of the expedited hearing; (3) a
    statement of the issue(s) presented for review; and (4) an argument, citing
    appropriate statutes, case law, or other authority.
    8
    APPENDIX
    Exhibits:
    1.   Affidavit of Craig Mann
    2.   Affidavit of Irby Trotter
    3.   Affidavit of James Mullins
    4.   Affidavit of Steve Albright
    Technical record:1
    1.   REH filed September 26, 2016
    2.   Order Granting Stay
    3.   Expedited Hearing Order filed August 9, 2016
    4.   Express Towing’s Prehearing Brief
    5.   Express Towing’s Witness and Exhibit List
    1
    The Court did not consider attachments to Technical Record filings unless admitted into evidence during the
    Expedited Hearing. The Court considered factual statements in these filings or any attachments to them as
    allegations unless established by the evidence.
    9
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent to the
    following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 15th day of December,
    2016.
    Name                 Certified    Via       Via         Address
    Mail         Fax       Email
    Thomas Lehman                                    X      eric@lehmansandifar.com
    Kitty Boyte                                      X      kboyte@constangy.com
    _______________________________________
    Penny Shrum, Court Clerk
    Wc.courtclerk@tn.gov
    10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2016-06-0702

Citation Numbers: 2016 TN WC 304

Judges: Joshua Davis Baker

Filed Date: 12/15/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/9/2021