Kelly v. Geriatric and Med. Serv.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding the defendant health care facility was a special employer of the plaintiff nurse rather than her general employer, a staffing agency
• noting that fifth prong can be satisfied by evidence of a formal power to discharge or a “functional equivalent,” such as a business’s ability to determine whether an employee will “ever again work at any of its [ ] facilities”
• finding third prong satisfied where plaintiff’s “work duties and job performances were assigned, directed and overseen” by special employer
• observing the employee did not dispute that the nursing work she performed for a health care facility was essentially that of the health care facility
• sufficient authority found when convalescent center had no power to fire employee but controlled whether employee worked at its facility
• \We have given little weight to [prong four] in our finding of special employment.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).