Opinion ID: 874509
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District 93's status as a statutory employer is a question of law in this instance.

Text: First, Cordova argues that it was improper to grant summary judgment because whether someone is a statutory employer is a question of fact. However, [i]f the evidence reveals no disputed issues of material fact, what remains is a question of law, over which this Court exercises free review. Robison, 139 Idaho at 209, 76 P.3d at 953 (citations omitted). In this case, there are no disputed material facts preventing summary judgment. Both parties agree that Cordova was an employee of District 91, who spent part of her time at a District 93 school. Furthermore, the parties agree that on the day of the accident, she was on premises leased by District 93 as a field trip supervisor, supervising both District 91 and District 93 students. Therefore, whether District 93 was Cordova's statutory employer is an issue of law. See Rhodes v. Sunshine Mining Co., 113 Idaho 162, 164, 742 P.2d 417, 419 (1987) (the record failed to disclose any issue of material fact leaving only questions of law including whether defendants were statutory employers shielded from tort liability). If these undisputed facts are sufficient to conclude that as a matter of law District 93 is Cordova's statutory employer, summary judgment was proper. Therefore, we must first determine whether Cordova is an employee, and second, whether District 93 is a statutory employer under the Worker's Compensation Law.