Saravia, Eduardo David v. Brent Vineyard

FILED
Feb 02, 2023
01:37 PM(ET)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT KNOXVILLE
EDUARDO DAVID SARAVIA, ) Docket No. 2021-03-1158
Employee, )
v. )
BRENT VINEYARD, )
Employer, ) State File No. 92704-2021
And )
NATIONAL SPECIALTY )
INSURANCE GROUP, )
Carrier. ) Judge Lisa A. Lowe
COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Court heard Brent Vineyard’s Motion for Summary Judgment on January 24,
2023, on whether Eduardo Saravia was an employee or independent contractor. For the
reasons below, the Court holds Mr. Vineyard is entitled to summary judgment.
Procedural History
Mr. Saravia sustained a right ankle injury when he fell from scaffolding on
September 29, 2021. Brent Vineyard denied his claim on grounds that Mr. Saravia was an
independent contractor, not an employee. After an Expedited Hearing, the Court denied
benefits because Mr. Saravia did not present sufficient evidence to show a likelihood of
establishing he was an employee. This motion followed.
Facts and Parties’ Position
Mr. Saravia did not respond to Mr. Vineyard’s Motion for Summary Judgment or
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts.
Mr. Vineyard filed a Rule 72 Declaration and the Expedited Hearing transcript in
support of his position that Mr. Saravia was an independent contractor. In the declaration,
he pointed to testimony from the hearing transcript to state the following:
1
◼ He did not control Mr. Saravia’s work.
◼ Mr. Saravia hired a crew of workers to help him complete the job.
◼ Mr. Vineyard did not retain the right to terminate Mr. Saravia.
◼ He paid Mr. Saravia in a lump sum, and Mr. Saravia determined what to pay his
crew.
◼ Mr. Vineyard did not provide any tools to Mr. Saravia or his crew.
◼ Mr. Saravia was able to offer his services to others.
In the expedited hearing transcript, Mr. Saravia agreed with all of these statements.
Law and Analysis
Summary Judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (2022).
As the moving party, Mr. Vineyard must do one of two things to prevail: (1) submit
affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Mr. Saravia’s claim, or (2)
demonstrate that Mr. Saravia’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of
his claim. Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If
Mr. Vineyard does either, Mr. Saravia must respond by producing specific facts showing
a genuine issue for trial. Id.; Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06.
Here, Mr. Vineyard submitted affirmative evidence that negates an essential
element of Mr. Saravia’s claim ̶ that an employment relationship existed ̶ and he also
demonstrated that Mr. Saravia’s evidence is insufficient to establish that element. Because
Mr. Vineyard met his burden, Mr. Saravia must “demonstrate the existence of specific facts
in the record which could lead a rational trier of fact to find in his favor[.]” Rye, at 265.
The Court finds he failed to do so.
Specifically, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(10)(D)(i) (2022)
provides these factors for deciding whether an individual is an employee or independent
contractor:
(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 working hours; and
(g) The freedom to offer services to other entities[.]
2
When considering those factors, no single aspect is conclusive in determining
whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor; rather “the trier of fact must
examine all relevant factors and circumstances” of the work relationship. Smiley v. Four
Seasons Coach Leasing, Inc., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 28, at *10-11 (July
15, 2016). However, the Appeals Board emphasized the importance of the right to control
the conduct of the work. Id.Applying these legal principles to the undisputed facts, every factor favors a finding
that Mr. Saravia was an independent contractor. Mr. Vineyard did not control Mr. Saravia’s
work or have the right to terminate Mr. Saravia. Mr. Vineyard and Mr. Saravia agreed on
a lump sum payment based on square footage, from which, Mr. Saravia would pay his
crew. This arrangement is atypical for an employee, who is usually paid hourly, and for his
efforts alone. Mr. Saravia hired his own crew, so he was free to select and hire helpers,
which an employee is usually not permitted to do. Mr. Vineyard did not provide tools or
equipment for Mr. Saravia’s use, and Mr. Saravia determined the hours that he and his
crew worked on the project. Finally, Mr. Saravia had the ability to offer his services to
other entities.
Thus, the undisputed material facts establish Mr. Saravia as an independent
contractor, not an employee, and Mr. Vineyard is entitled to summary judgment as a matter
of law.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Brent Vineyard’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Mr. Saravia’s claim is
dismissed with prejudice.
2. Unless appealed, this order shall become final thirty days after entry.
3. The Court taxes the $150.00 filing fee to Brent Vineyard, payable to the clerk within
five days of this order becoming final.
4. Brent Vineyard shall prepare and submit the SD-2 with the clerk within ten-days of the
date of judgment.
ENTERED February 2, 2023.
_____________________________________
JUDGE LISA A. LOWE
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims,
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the Order was sent as indicated on February 2, 2023.
Name Mail Email Service sent to:
Eduardo David Saravia, X saravia1985orellana@gmail.com
Self-Represented
Employee
Fred Baker, X fbaker@wimberlylawson.com
Employer’s Attorney
_____________________________________
PENNY SHRUM, Court Clerk
WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov
4
Compensation Order Right to Appeal:
If you disagree with this Compensation Order, you may appeal to the Workers’
Compensation Appeals Board. To do so, you must:
1. Complete the enclosed form entitled “Notice of Appeal” and file it with the Clerk of the
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within thirty calendar days of the date the
Compensation Order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy
upon the opposing party (or attorney, if represented).
2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar
days after filing the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at any Bureau office
or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the alternative, you may file an
Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s website or any Bureau office)
seeking a waiver of the filing fee. You must file the fully-completed Affidavit of Indigency
within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing
fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will result in dismissal of your appeal.
3. You are responsible for ensuring a complete record is presented on appeal. The Court Clerk
will prepare the technical record and exhibits for submission to the Appeals Board, and you
will receive notice once it has been submitted. If no court reporter was present at the hearing,
you may request from the Court Clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee.
A licensed court reporter must prepare a transcript, and you must file it with the Court Clerk
within fifteen calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a
statement of the evidence prepared jointly by both parties within fifteen calendar days of
filing the Notice of Appeal. The statement of the evidence must convey a complete and
accurate account of the testimony presented at the hearing. The Workers’ Compensation
Judge must approve the statement of the evidence before the record is submitted to the
Appeals Board. If the Appeals Board must review testimony or other proof concerning
factual matters, the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence can be a significant
obstacle to meaningful appellate review.
4. After the Workers’ Compensation Judge approves the record and the Court Clerk transmits
it to the Appeals Board, a docketing notice will be sent to the parties. You have fifteen
calendar days after the date of that notice to file a brief to the Appeals Board. See the Rules
governing the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on the Bureau’s website
If neither party timely files an appeal with the Appeals Board, the trial court’s Order will
become final by operation of law thirty calendar days after entry. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
239(c)(7).
For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667.