Jairo Noe Morales Villareal v. Handyman Home Improvement, LLC

Summary

The Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims held that Jairo Noe Morales Villareal was likely an employee of Handyman Home Improvement, LLC and sustained a compensable work-related injury. The court ordered Handyman to pay reasonable and necessary medical expenses and provide an orthopedic treatment panel in Mexico or pay for return treatment at Vanderbilt, but denied temporary disability benefits for lack of supporting evidence. The court dismissed the claim against Hector Cerda without prejudice and denied benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund because residency was not established.

Holdings

1. Morales was an employee of Handyman, not an independent contractor, because the undisputed evidence showed that Handyman controlled his work, paid him weekly, furnished his tools and equipment, and coordinated customer contact and scheduling.
2. Handyman was a construction services provider under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-902 and therefore was required to provide workers' compensation benefits even if it had fewer than five employees.
3. Morales established a compensable work-related injury to his sternum and thoracic spine, and Handyman was ordered to pay reasonable and necessary medical expenses at Vanderbilt and provide a panel of orthopedists in Mexico or pay for return treatment at Vanderbilt.
4. Morales was not entitled to temporary disability benefits at that time because he did not provide evidence documenting his wages, whether he had returned to any employment, or the duration of his inability to work.
5. Cerda's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice to refiling because Morales unequivocally testified that Handyman, rather than Cerda, employed him.
6. Morales did not establish entitlement to benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund because he presented no evidence that he was a Tennessee resident when the injury occurred.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Morales was an employee of Handyman rather than an independent contractor under Tennessee's statutory employee-status factors.
2. Whether Handyman was required to provide workers' compensation benefits as a construction services provider despite possibly having fewer than five employees.
3. Whether Morales established a compensable work-related injury entitling him to reasonable and necessary medical treatment.
4. Whether Morales presented sufficient evidence to obtain temporary disability benefits at the expedited hearing.
5. Whether the claim against Hector Cerda should be dismissed.
6. Whether Morales established eligibility for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund by proving Tennessee residency at the time of injury.

Disposition

other