Cases

There is a presumption that an employee is not a borrowed servant but instead continues to work for and be an employee of the general employer. To overcome this presumption, a party must establish the following elements: 1) There was a contract for hire, either express or implied, between the special employer and the employee; 2) the work being done at the time of the injury was essentially that of the special employer; 3) the power to control the details of the work resided with the special employer. The first factor, whether there was an express or implied contract, is the critical issue. Court determined that the evidence of record did not support the granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment in regards to the plaintiff’s employment status as a special employee and reversed the lower court’s granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the alleged special employer.

 

The defendant employer did not meet the definition of a help supply services company which by statute is a special employer entitled to immunity under the terms of Section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (1999). The defendant employer was not a company hiring workers through temporary employment agencies or employment leasing companies. In dicta, the court in past cases had commented that the definition of a help supply services company should be limited to situations involving day labor pools. In this case, the defendant was not a day labor pool company. In addition, there was no finding that the defendant employer was a temporary employment agency, an employee leasing company, or a help services company. See definition of "help supply services company" as defined by OSHA Standard Industry Code Number 7363.