Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

Generally, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, if an employee is entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits, then that employee cannot sue their employer for any injuries sustained, as provided in the Workers Compensation Law. But what happens when an employee of a staffing or temp agency is temporarily placed with a different employer and suffers an injury entitling them to workers compensation benefits? Who would be obligated to provide workers’ compensation benefits in such circumstances, and who would consequently be generally barred from suits brought by the employee?

On July 24, 2024, in Miolan v. Milmar Food Group, LLC, et al, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 03886, the Appellate Division, Second Department, answered those exact questions.

In Miolan, Alquidania Miolan, an employee of a staffing agency, had been temporarily placed in the employ of a frozen food manufacturing facility operated by the Defendants, Milmar Food Group, LLC.  Miolan slipped and fell on water and sustained injuries and then filed suit against Milmar.  Defendant Milmar moved for summary judgment, citing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers Compensation Law barring such a suit. The lower Supreme Court granted Milmar’s motion, and Miolan then appealed.

In reviewing the case, the Second Department noted that, as often occurs with staffing and temp agencies, an employee can be deemed to have more than one employer; they can have a general employer and a special employer. In the latter circumstance, an employee of a special employer is considered a special employee when they have been temporarily transferred to fulfill the services of or for another employer, regardless of the duration of said temporary employment.

Additionally, when determining whether a general employer or a special employer is obligated to provide workers’ compensation benefits, and therefore be barred against suits from the employer, the Second Department determined that the answer turns on which employer “controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work.” In Miolan, the Court held that Defendant Milmar controlled and directed the manner, details and ultimate result of the Plaintiff’s work, not the staffing agency.  Accordingly summary judgment in favor of Milmar was affirmed.

An important point of distinction to be made for any employer to keep in mind when utilizing staffing or temp agency services!

Thanks to William Hoffman for his contribution to this article.