United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-30940

Brandon Morris, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Graphic Packaging International, L.L.C., 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 3:19-CV-266

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

While working for Graphic Packaging International (“GPI”), 

Brandon Morris was injured on the job site and later sued GPI in tort. GPI

contends that, since Morris is a statutory employee, workers’ compensation

provides Morris’s only remedy. The district court granted summary 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940

2

judgment for GPI and denied Morris’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment. Morris appeals and we affirm.

This court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de 

novo, applying the same standards as the district court. DePree v. Saunders, 

588 F. 3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate if no 

genuine dispute of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

In January 2018, GPI, a paper manufacturer, and Morris’s employer, 

ML Smith, Jr., L.L.C. (“ML Smith”) entered into a written contract 

(“Purchase Order”). The Purchase Order contained a document outlining 

terms and conditions. The terms and conditions form stated the requirement 

that ML Smith carry workers’ compensation insurance and that GPI would 

be the statutory employer of ML Smith’s employees. Id.

A month later, Morris was assembling a new black liquor reclaim tank 

when he stepped in brown or black fluid on the ground. Morris sustained 

chemical burns on both his feet and has received benefits from Zurich

American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), the insurer that issued ML

Smith’s workers’ compensation policy. 

A little less than a year after his injuries, Morris filed suit against GPI 

in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. GPI 

removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The district 

court granted summary judgment for GPI and denied Morris’s Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment. Morris timely appealed. Zurich was an 

intervenor at the district court level, but has not appealed the ruling to this 

court.

Under Louisiana law, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy 

in situations such as this one if the employee is a statutory employee. LA. 

Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940

3

STAT. ANN. § 23:1061 (2019). The terms of statutory employment are set 

out by Louisiana Revised Statutes § 23:1061(A)(3):

[A] statutory employer relationship shall not exist 

between the principal and the contractor's employees, whether 

they are direct employees or statutory employees, unless there 

is a written contract between the principal and a contractor 

which is the employee's immediate employer or his statutory 

employer, which recognizes the principal as a statutory 

employer. When the contract recognizes a statutory employer 

relationship, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of a 

statutory employer relationship between the principal and the 

contractor's employees, whether direct or statutory 

employees. This presumption may be overcome only by 

showing that the work is not an integral part of or essential to 

the ability of the principal to generate that individual principal's 

goods, products, or services.

La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061 (2019).

In short, a worker is a statutory employee of the principal (here, GPI) 

if the employment relationship is formed with a written contract, and the 

employee is hired to perform services that are an integral part of the 

employer’s business.

In this appeal, Morris contends that an unsigned writing – here, a

Purchase Order with attached terms and conditions – cannot qualify as a 

written contract as required under Louisiana law for statutory employees. 

Morris also contends that the construction of a reclaim tank is not an integral 

part of GPI’s business, even though the use of the reclaim tank is an integral 

part of GPI’s business. We reject both claims.

I. The Purchase Order satisfies the written contract requirement.

“Except for intentional acts, workers’ compensation is the exclusive 

remedy for work-related injuries and illnesses.” Dugan v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 

Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940

4

45-407-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/23/10); 41 So.3d 1263, 1266 (citing La. Stat. 

Ann. § 23:1032). This statute applies if the worker is a statutory employee

of a principal.

1 La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061. Under this statute, a statutory

employment relationship exists when a principal hires a contractor, in 

conformance with § 23:1061, to perform services that are a part of the 

principal's business and a written contract exists between the principal and 

contractor that recognizes the principal as a statutory employer. La. Stat. 

Ann. § 23:1061.

The Purchase Order is a “written contract” as required by Louisiana 

Revised Statutes 23:1061(A)(3) because it contains a clear written expression 

that GPI was Morris’s statutory employer. The Purchase Order states, in 

relevant part, “SECTION 13: STATUTORY EMPLOYMENT: If services 

are to be performed at [GPI's] facilities in the state of Louisiana, it is agreed 

that pursuant to the provisions of Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1061(A)(3), 

that it is the intent and agreement of the parties hereto that the relationship 

of ... [GPI] to the direct employees and the statutory employees of [ML

Smith] (contractor) be that of a statutory employer.” This court has before 

recognized that this identical language was sufficient to recognize a statutory

employment relationship. Nielsen v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., Civil 

Action No. 09-1757, 2011 WL 2462496 (W.D. La. June 17, 2011) aff'd, 469 F. 

App'x 305 (5th Cir. 2012).

2

1 A principal is defined as “any person who undertakes to execute any work which 

is a part of his trade, business, or occupation in which he was engaged at the time of the 

injury, or which he had contracted to perform and contracts with any person for the 

execution thereof.” La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1032.

2 Although Nielsen is an unpublished opinion and is not therefore binding on this 

court, it is useful evidence of this court’s treatment of this issue because of the factual 

similarity.

Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940

5

While Morris contends that the contract is invalid because it was 

unsigned, the plain text of the Louisiana statute in question does not require 

a signed writing, it just requires a “written contract.” La. Stat. Ann.

§ 23:1061 (A)(3). Under Louisiana law, the offer and acceptance may be oral,

and acceptance can be through performance, as it was here. La. Civ. 

Code Ann. art. 1927 (“Unless the law prescribes a certain formality for the 

intended contract, offer and acceptance may be made orally, in writing, or by 

action or inaction that under the circumstances is clearly indicative of 

consent.”). Further, the validity of the written contract was not at issue 

because, per the opening paragraph of the Purchase Order, performance 

constitutes acceptance. (“Acknowledgement, shipment or performance of 

any part of this Purchase Order will constitute acceptance by Seller of all 

Terms and Conditions hereof, including all documents incorporated herein 

by reference”).

Therefore, while the Purchase Order was unsigned, it was a written 

contract that was accepted through performance and is a binding contract.

II. Morris’s work in the construction of the reclaim tanks is an 

integral and essential part of GPI’s business. 

Once a principal has shown that a written contract has provided for a 

statutory employment relationship, there is a rebuttable presumption of 

statutory employment that can be overcome only by showing that the work is 

not an “integral part of or essential to the ability of the principal to generate 

that individual principal's goods, products, or services.” La. Stat. Ann.

§ 23:1061 (A)(3); see also Everitt v. Rubicon, Incorporated, 2004-1988 (La. App. 

1 Cir. 6/14/06); 938 So.2d 1032 (“[T]he legislature has now shifted the 

burden of proof to the employee to rebut the presumption of a statutory 

employer relationship where a written contract recognizes such a 

relationship, and the statute specifies the burden the employee must meet in 

order to rebut the presumption.”). Morris contends that he can meet his 

Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940

6

burden to show that the work he was performing was not an integral part of 

or essential to the ability of GPI to generate its goods, products, and services. 

La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061 (A)(3); Jackson v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 2004-0026, 

(La.App. 1 Cir. 12/17/04); 897 So.2d 684, 688, writ denied, 2005-0156 

(La.3/24/05), 896 So.2d1042.

According to an affidavit sworn by a GPI manufacturing manager, 

black liquor reclaim tanks, such as the one Morris was working on, are an 

“integral part of and essential to GPI’s ability to produce its paperboard 

products from both a continuous process perspective, as well as from an 

economic and environmental perspective.” Morris responds that, while the 

use of the tanks is an integral part of GPI’s business, the construction of those 

tanks is not an integral part of GPI’s business. Not so. Louisiana appellate 

courts have recognized that the statutory employer test is liberal and 

expansive, and for example held that the construction of a new fractionation 

plant was an essential part of a chemical company’s business. See Jackson v. 

St. Paul Ins. Co., 2004-0026, (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/17/04); 897 So.2d 684, 688-

89, writ denied, 2005-0156 (La.3/24/05), 896 So.2d 1042 (“[T]he legislature 

has specifically rejected a restrictive analysis in favor of a more liberal 

interpretation of the words ‘integral’ and ‘essential.’”); Applegarth v. 

Transamerican Ref. Corp., 00-1547 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/28/01), 781 So. 2d 804, 

807, writ denied, 2001-0834 (La. 5/11/01), 792 So. 2d 738 (After 

“[c]onsidering the history of the legislative responses to the restriction of 

statutory employee status by the courts, we conclude that [the legislature] 

intended the section to apply to new construction” in at least some 

circumstances, and therefore constructing “a retaining wall around the oil 

tanks and laying cement forms for the installation of pipe racks is essential to 

the ability of the refinery to generate its goods, products, or services.”)

Since it is undisputed that the use of black liquor tanks is an integral

and essential part of GPI’s business, and Louisiana courts have classified the 

Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
No. 19-30940

7

new construction of an integral part of a company’s business as itself an 

integral part of the company’s business, we agree with the district court’s 

conclusion that the construction of black liquor reclaim tanks is an integral 

part of GPI’s business. See La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061 (A)(3). Morris has 

not met his burden to rebut the written contract establishing a statutory 

employer relationship, and consequently, GPI was Morris’s statutory 

employer.

III. Conclusion

As Morris’s statutory employer, GPI is immune from Morris’s tort

claims and his exclusive remedy is workers’ compensation. Accordingly, the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-30940 Document: 00515598131 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/12/2020