Court Opinion

ID: 9385396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 16:17:26.729236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.893926
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                 Apr 06, 2023
                                                                                 10:51 AM(CT)
                                                                              TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                             WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                    CLAIMS

       TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
         IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
                          AT NASHVILLE

 ANDRES HERNANDEZ,                           ) Docket No. 2021-06-1105
          Employee,                          )
 v.                                          )
                                             )
 SMS, INC., d/b/a Master Stucco,             ) State File No. 800494-2021
             Employer,                       )
                                             )
 and                                         )
                                             )
 TRAVELERS PROPERTY                          ) Judge Joshua Davis Baker
 CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA,                    )
         Carrier.                            )

                           EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

        The Court held a March 16, 2023 expedited hearing to determine Mr. Hernandez’s
entitlement to past and ongoing medical and temporary disability benefits for fracturing his
left shoulder in a fall at work. Specifically, the issue is whether Mr. Hernandez was an
employee rather than an independent contractor. For the reasons below, the Court finds he
is likely to prevail at a final hearing in proving he was an employee, and Master Stucco
must provide him medical benefits.

                                      Claim History

      Mr. Hernandez traveled to Nashville from Mexico because his brother-in-law,
Juvencio Rivera Vargas, told him Master Stucco needed workers. He worked on Master
Stucco jobsites by handing tools and materials to co-employees, cleaning up, and
performing other unskilled labor.

        Master Stucco’s owner, Glen Cruzen, testified that he first met Mr. Hernandez when
visiting a jobsite, which he did almost daily. Mr. Cruzen recalled, “So, when I went by to
check on the job, [Mr. Rivera] said, ‘I would like for him to work with us.’ That’s how I
met him and how he joined us.”
       Mr. Hernandez lived with Mr. Rivera and another Master Stucco employee in a
home that they rented from Mr. Cruzen. The three men rode together to Master Stucco’s
jobsites. Another worker named Jose, whose last name Mr. Hernandez did not know, lived
next door to the men in a separate home on the same property. Jose delivered materials to
jobsites and acted as an interpreter and translator. While Mr. Hernandez said Jose was “in
charge,” Mr. Cruzen said Jose was “more of a courier.”

       On July 27, 2021, Mr. Rivera asked Mr. Hernandez to help him place “square
things” on the outside of a chimney at a private residence on a Master Stucco jobsite. As
Mr. Hernandez walked across a loose board of scaffolding, it gave way, and he fell from
the top section of the scaffolding onto the scaffolding section below, fracturing his left
shoulder.

       He recalled feeling immense pain and wanting treatment but having no way to get
to the hospital. After speaking with Mr. Cruzen by phone, Mr. Rivera refused to take Mr.
Hernandez to a hospital or call an ambulance. He took him home instead. With his arm
swollen and painful, Mr. Hernandez went next door to ask Jose for help. Jose called Mr.
Cruzen but told Mr. Hernandez to manage with pain medication and wait until morning.

        The next morning, Jose called Mr. Hernandez to say Mr. Cruzen’s son would take
him to the hospital. He also told him to report that his injury occurred at home from falling
off a ladder while changing a lightbulb. He encouraged him to ignore any medical bills,
saying the hospital would not collect. At the hospital, imaging revealed a left shoulder
fracture.

        From there, Mr. Hernandez had a hard time getting follow-up treatment, missing his
first appointment because no one would drive him. As he wrote in his declaration, which
was translated into English, “I didn’t know anyone and I didn’t have anyone to bring me,
and I don’t speak English[.] I was living in Glenn’s house with my coworkers Juvencio
and Jose Antonio, and they couldn’t bring me to the hospital [without] permission[.]”
Eventually, Mr. Hernandez located an organization with volunteers to drive him to doctors’
appointments and help him initiate legal action. After he filed his case, Mr. Hernandez was
evicted.

       On August 19, Dr. Philip Elizondo estimated that Mr. Hernandez would be unable
to work until November 11. He wrote, “Explained to the patient that his fracture will take
a minimum of 6 weeks to heal in an arm sling. He would also need at least 6 weeks of
therapy and strengthening exercises before he would be reable [sic] to return to
construction work.” Despite this prediction, Mr. Hernandez testified he started new
employment sooner than expected, sometime between October 20-25.
      Mr. Cruzen testified about his company’s work, its “business model,” including why
he uses undocumented workers, and how he developed a release for workers to sign to
acknowledge their status as independent contractors.

       He explained that his company does not install stucco but instead repairs a wide
variety of materials that intersect with stucco and damage it, like roof flashings, window
caulking, or failed windowsills. Because it’s a “messy business” and skilled labor is
expensive to use for simple clean-up, the company has “brought in companies who only
clean up jobsites.” However, Mr. Cruzen said, “Sometimes it’s easier to also have people
who can do that for us, if it’s small, ‘in house.’”

         Mr. Cruzen said his business model has adapted over thirty years because immigrant
labor has “dramatically changed” the construction industry. For example, he said that “laws
. . . prevent construction owners from hiring undocumented workers yet [allow] immigrants
in to compete.” Also, “young kids in our society don’t want to work in construction. They
have this dream of working at Google and playing video games and getting paid a hundred
thousand a year.”

       From Mr. Cruzen’s perspective, his hiring choices are “ex-convicts, people who
have judgments against them, people behind in child support, as well as immigrants who
are not legal to work here. Sad to say: that’s all that’s available.” He hires undocumented
immigrants because his clients have “above average income” and many valuables. He
explained, “Sometimes we have access to the inside of their home. . . . Therefore, I need
people who can be trusted.” So, he added, “We have found that the law does not punish us
if we use independent contractors.”

       He created a “pay arrangement” to keep his company competitive but protected. He
asked his workers to sign a “Payment & Lien Release” to receive pay, giving them a week
to review the release. Afterward, employees signed the below when receiving their
paychecks:
        Mr. Hernandez testified he did not understand the release, knew he needed to sign
it to receive pay, and simply dared not ask questions. He testified, “I did not come here to
ask questions; I came here to work.” His Spanish is not the best, according to his
declaration, nor does he speak or understand English. He testified that the release he signed
has been explained since he signed it, but he is still not sure he understands it. Further, he
did not comprehend the significance of a 1099 form. He stated that he does not know
whether he received a 1099 or what he would have done with it if he had.

       Before coming to Tennessee, Mr. Hernandez worked in Mexico, cleaning homes,
washing cars, and working in fields. He did not know the Spanish word for “stucco,” only
recognizing the word’s meaning when the interpreter showed him images on her phone.
From his perspective, asking questions was futile, as he lacked the resources necessary to
negotiate anything other than what Mr. Cruzen was willing to extend.

        Jose Antonio Baptista, who worked with Mr. Hernandez and still works for Mr.
Cruzen, testified that he used Google Translate to read the release in Spanish, understood
it, and willingly signed the statements to receive his pay. He said he considers himself an
independent contractor, but he also referred to the releases as “proof of payment.” He and
Mr. Rivera used their own tools, and he said he only works for Master Stucco.

        Both parties testified regarding Mr. Cruzen’s control over the work his company
performs. Mr. Cruzen testified, “Almost every day I go to every job” to examine the work.
Mr. Hernandez testified that Mr. Rivera would send Mr. Cruzen pictures of their work at
the end of every workday. And Mr. Cruzen acknowledged, “I have an attention to detail
that drives people insane, but that is why people hire me to do the work.”

        About Mr. Hernandez’s hiring, he said he told Mr. Rivera, “‘If you like him, that’s
fine.’” But usually, he said, “I would ask what kind of experience they have because we
prefer people with construction experience,” as anyone else “may not like inconsistent
timelines when we cannot work.” He continued, “Those are the kind of people I want, is
someone who will be there, because if they don’t show up, it affects me . . . After fifty-one
years, you kind of know what you want to find.” And now that he has implemented the
releases for a worker to receive pay, he said he “explain[s] to the worker the pay
arrangement before they even start.”

                        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

       Mr. Hernandez must present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he would likely
prevail at a final hearing. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2022); McCord v. Advantage
Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

      Concerning the status of Mr. Hernandez’s work relationship with Master Stucco,
the Workers’ Compensation Law defines “employee” to include “every person . . . in the
service of an employer . . . under any contract of hire or apprenticeship, written or
implied[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(10)(A). An employee does not, however, include
an “independent contractor” or “subcontractor.” Id. at § 50-6-102(10)(D)(i).

       Whether the worker is an employee or subcontractor depends on the nature of the
business, the way it is conducted, and the worker’s relationship to that business. Seals v.
Zollo, 327 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. 1959). When in question, the worker claiming an employment
relationship exists bears the burden of proof, to be determined by considering the following
factors:

       (a) The right to control the conduct of the work,
       (b) The right of termination,
       (c) The method of payment,
       (d) The freedom to select and hire helpers,
       (e) The furnishing of tools and equipment
       (f) Self-scheduling of work hours,
       (g) The freedom to offer services to other entities[.]

Id. at § 50-6-102(10)(D)(i).

       Notably, it is “the duty [of courts] to determine if the worker is an employee or
independent contractor, and the employer cannot use a contract to take that responsibility
from the court.” Smith v. Beazer Homes, No. W2005-01114-SC-WCM-CV, 2006 Tenn.
LEXIS 687, at *6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Aug. 23, 2006). Under Workers’
Compensation Law, “[n]o contract or agreement, written or implied, or rule, regulation or
other device, shall in any manner operate to relieve any employer, in whole or in part, of
any obligation created by this chapter[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-114(a). Therefore, the
signed releases from employees purporting to acknowledge independent contractor status
carry no weight in this analysis.

       Rather, the Court must view the evidence presented through the lens of the seven
factors listed in the statute and case cited above. The Court applies each factor to determine
– not what Mr. Hernandez agreed to be called – but the actual working relationship between
him and Master Stucco.

        The picture that emerged from testimony was not that of an independent contractor
who possessed control, rights, independence, or freedom, which are all words in the
applicable statutory and case-law factors. In contrast, the employer here controlled
housing, transportation, “pay arrangement,” hours, work conduct and performance, as well
as hiring and firing. Mr. Hernandez testified that he witnessed two workers, including his
own brother-in-law, ask permission to get him medical treatment, which demonstrates the
control Mr. Cruzen exercised over his workforce and jobsites.
       As for factor a, Mr. Cruzen used his expertise and attention to detail to control work-
quality, visiting jobsites and obtaining photographs at workdays’ end. With fifty-one years
of experience, he could expertly perform the work the men were doing and used that
knowledge and experience to oversee their work.

        Concerning factors b, c, and d, Mr. Cruzen clearly articulated his control over hiring
and firing, saying that his company’s reputation could not risk hiring someone he deems
dishonest or irresponsible, like a felon or an absentee parent with a judgment, as he cannot
risk theft from his clients. He also made decisions concerning pay method, paying the men
individually and insisting on their signature on a document calling themselves independent
contractors in exchange for employment.

        Additionally, he exerted control over his workforce as a landlord, which affects
factors f and g. While, in theory, the men could work elsewhere, they did not. Mr. Cruzen
said his company benefitted from having employees close at hand and “in-house.” As he
said, the company needs “someone who will be there, because if they don’t show up, it
affects [him].” Further, Mr. Hernandez could not control his work hours, as Master Stucco
employees controlled his transportation. He worked when his co-workers at Master Stucco
worked. Similarly, he went to the hospital only when they or Mr. Cruzen’s son decided to
take him.

        Factor e is of little relevance here because Mr. Hernandez needed no specialized
tools or equipment, since he worked only as a helper. His lack of specialized training
appeared evident, as he called some material “square things” and did not know stucco or
its equivalent Spanish word.

       Given these factors, the Court finds Mr. Hernandez is likely to prevail in proving
his status as an employee for Master Stucco rather than an independent contractor.
Therefore, Master Stucco must “furnish, free of charge to the employee, such medical and
surgical treatment . . . made reasonably necessary by accident[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-
6-204(a)(1)(A).

       Mr. Hernandez fractured his left shoulder, an injury that required medical treatment,
while working for Master Stucco. Therefore, Master Stucco would likely be required to
pay for his past medical treatment for this work injury at a final hearing. See Ducros v.
Metro Roofing and Metal Supply Co., Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 62, at
*10 (Oct. 17, 2017) (“[A]n employer who does not timely provide a panel of physicians
risks being required to pay for treatment an injured worker receives on his own.”).

       Further, an employee who becomes disabled from working due to a workplace
injury that prevents him from working for a specific period is entitled to compensation.
Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7 (Dec.
11, 2015). Dr. Elizondo wrote that Mr. Hernandez’s work injury would disable him from
working for twelve weeks. Mr. Hernandez testified he returned to work earlier than
expected, after about ten weeks. So, he is due temporary total disability benefits for that
period. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(1).

       However, even though Mr. Hernandez is likely to prove his entitlement to temporary
disability and past medical expenses at a final hearing, the Court cannot award those
benefits without admissible proof of his wages and medical bills.

      Therefore, the Court must deny his request for temporary disability benefits and past
medical expenses at this time. If Mr. Hernandez files a motion with admissible proof
supporting an award of those benefits, the Court will grant an award at that time.

It is ORDERED as follows:

   1. Master Stucco shall provide Mr. Hernandez with reasonable and necessary medical
      treatment for the work-related shoulder injury with Dr. Philip Elizondo as the
      authorized treating physician.

   2. Mr. Hernandez’s request for temporary disability benefits and past medical
      expenses is denied at this time.

   3. This case is set for a status hearing on June 19, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. Central Time.
      The parties must call 615-741-2113 or 855-874-0474.

   4. Unless interlocutory appeal of this Expedited Hearing Order is filed, compliance
      with this Order must occur by seven business days of entry of this Order as required
      by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3). The Insurer or Self-Insured
      Employer must submit confirmation of compliance by email to
      WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov by the compliance deadline. Failure to do so may
      result in a penalty assessment for non-compliance. For compliance questions,
      please contact the Workers’ Compensation Compliance Unit by email at
      WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov.

ENTERED April 6, 2023.

                                          ______________________________________
                                          Joshua Davis Baker, Judge
                                          Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
Exhibits

   1. Medical Records
   2. Rule 72 Declaration of Andres Hernandez
   3. Master Stucco Payment and Lien Releases, collective exhibit

Technical Record

   1.   Petition for Benefit Determination
   2.   Dispute Certification Notice
   3.   Request for Expedited Hearing
   4.   Motion to Continue
   5.   Order Granting Motion to Continue
   6.   Motion for Sanctions
   7.   Order Granting Motion for Sanctions
   8.   Order Setting Expedited Hearing
   9.   Employer’s Prehearing Statement

                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on April 6, 2023.

  Name                        Certified Fax     Email    Service sent to:
                               Mail
  Andres Hernandez,                               X      Andres.hernandez.hernandez1973@gma
  Employee                                               il.com
  Ritchie Pigue,                                  X      rpigue@tpmblaw.com
  Employer’s Attorney                                    mwatson@tpmblaw.com
                                                         dsmith@tpmblaw.com

                                           ___________________________________
                                           Penny Shrum, Court Clerk
                                           Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
                                           wc.courtclerk@tn.gov
                                              NOTICE OF APPEAL
                                      Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
                                        www.tn.gov/workforce/injuries-at-work/
                                        wc.courtclerk@tn.gov | 1-800-332-2667

                                                                                  Docket No.: ________________________

                                                                                  State File No.: ______________________

                                                                                  Date of Injury: _____________________

         ___________________________________________________________________________
         Employee

         v.

         ___________________________________________________________________________
         Employer

Notice is given that ____________________________________________________________________
                         [List name(s) of all appealing party(ies). Use separate sheet if necessary.]

appeals the following order(s) of the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (check one or more applicable boxes and include the date file-
stamped on the first page of the order(s) being appealed):

□ Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ □ Motion Order filed on ___________________
□ Compensation Order filed on__________________ □ Other Order filed on_____________________
issued by Judge _________________________________________________________________________.

Statement of the Issues on Appeal
Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal:
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

Parties
Appellant(s) (Requesting Party): _________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee
Address: ________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________
Email: __________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: ______________________________________________ BPR#: _______________________
Attorney’s Email: ______________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
                           * Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *

LB-1099 rev. 01/20                              Page 1 of 2                                              RDA 11082
Employee Name: _______________________________________ Docket No.: _____________________ Date of Inj.: _______________

Appellee(s) (Opposing Party): ___________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee
Appellee’s Address: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________
Email: _________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: _____________________________________________ BPR#: ________________________
Attorney’s Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
                              * Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *

                                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, _____________________________________________________________, certify that I have forwarded a
true and exact copy of this Notice of Appeal by First Class mail, postage prepaid, or in any manner as described
in Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations, Chapter 0800-02-21, to all parties and/or their attorneys in this
case on this the __________ day of ___________________________________, 20 ____.

                                                           ______________________________________________
                                                            [Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]

LB-1099 rev. 01/20                                 Page 2 of 2                                        RDA 11082