Rivera v. Sagebrush Sales, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that the difference between the two tests “is a matter of some confusion within the practicing bar, with some people taking the position that there is no distinction and that borrowed employees are just one sort of statutory employee”
• “characterization of relationship by worker or employer does not control determination of whether employment relationship exists”
• “Under certain conditions, both the general and special employer are liable for workers’ compensation.”
• “Under certain conditions, both the general and special employer are liable for workers’ compensation.”
• special employer liable for workers’ compensation benefits when: (1) employee has contract of hire with special employer; (2) work done is that of special employer; and (3) special employer has right to control details of work
• “The fact that Rivera’s affidavit asserted that he had no employment contract with Sagebrush and that he had not been told he would be considered Sagebrush’s employee for purposes of the Act does not change this result.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).