Molina v. State Garden, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-126-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 14-P-676 Appeals Court ANTONIO PEREZ MOLINA vs. STATE GARDEN, INC. No. 14-P-676. Suffolk. December 10, 2014. – September 3, 2015. Present: Katzmann, Hanlon, & Maldonado, JJ. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment. Workers’ Compensation Act, Action against third person, Identity of employer, Exclusivity provision. Waiver. Insurance, Waiver. Release. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 17, 2011. The case was heard by Robert B. Gordon, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Mark S. Horrigan for the plaintiff. Martha J. Zackin for the defendant. John Pagliaro & Martin J. Newhouse, for New England Legal Foundation & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. KATZMANN, J. This appeal presents the question whether the “alternate employer endorsement” to a staffing company’s workers’ compensation insurance policy satisfies the requirements of G. L. c. 152, §§ 15 and 18, such that an injured employee’s employer, a customer of the staffing company and named in the endorsement, is immune from tort liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act). We answer that question in the affirmative. The plaintiff, Antonio Perez Molina (Molina or employee), was injured while providing services on assignment from American Resource Staffing Network, Inc. (ARS), to State Garden, Inc. (State Garden or defendant), and brought suit against State Garden for negligence. While his case was pending in the trial court, he was awarded workers’ compensation benefits on ARS’s policy, which named the defendant as an additional insured. A Superior Court judge allowed State Garden’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Molina’s complaint on the ground that his claim was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act, G. L. c. 152, §§ 23-24.[1] Molina appeals. We affirm.[2] Background. ARS is a staffing company that provides temporary staffing to clients such as State Garden, a produce business. State Garden uses ARS employees to supplement its workforce. Molina was assigned to State Garden as a temporary worker at its processing facility in Chelsea, Massachusetts. On or about December 22, 2010, Molina sustained a low back injury in the course of his work for State Garden.[3] Molina’s injury was covered by the Act. He applied for and received benefits from A.I.M. Mutual Insurance Company, ARS’s workers’ compensation insurer. State Garden and ARS both acted as Molina’s employer, controlling different aspects of his employment. ARS was the “general employer,” to whom Molina applied for […]