Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Where Tyson Farms contracted with a chick farm owner, who actually knew nothing about raising chickens, to raise chickens exclusively for Tyson according to strict guidelines and controls, Tyson could be deemed a co-employer of a worker at the farm who sustained injuries, particularly in light of the fact that the owner of the farm failed to provide workers’ compensation coverage for the worker, held a Maryland appellate court. Observing that Tyson was an international poultry processor, yet did “not own a single chicken farm,” the court indicated that Tyson maintained more than sufficient control over the worker to make him its employee for purposes of workers’ compensation benefits.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Uninsured Employers’ Fund v. Tyson Farms, Inc., 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 1023 (Nov. 22, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 68.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.