Roberts v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Filing 920100323

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the Supreme\
Court of the United States, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = '                   As the district court noted, Song went through a number\
of name changes, sometimes as a d/b/a of Delta. Roberts does not\
claim that any of these name changes confused or misled her.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = '                   Since neither party has raised it on appeal, we bypass\
the question of whether the terms of the settlement agreement bar\
this action.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = '                   The timeliness of the removal in this case has not been\
challenged and we take no view on it.\
'

var WPFootnote5 = '                   It is undisputed that Roberts\'s injury is compensable\
under workers\' compensation law because she suffered a personal\
injury that arose in the course of her employment, and thus any\
common law claims against her employer would be barred. Mass. Gen.\
Laws ch. 152, § 26; see also Saab, 896 N.E.2d at 619-20; Foley v.\
Polaroid Corp., 413 N.E.2d 711, 713-14 (Mass. 1980).\
'

var WPFootnote6 = '                   Roberts also argues that Delta cannot satisfy the second\
prong of the test for immunity. She asserts that at most Delta was\
her "special employer" and that there is a dispute of fact as to\
whether Delta was an "insured person liable for payment of\
compensation" to Roberts such that it was entitled to immunity. \
Fleming, 881 N.E.2d at 1146; see also Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152,\
§ 18. Because Roberts did not raise this argument before the\
district court, it is waived. Even so, the argument understates\
plaintiff\'s relationship with Delta. Delta, as a co-insured with\
Song on the workers compensation policy, was liable for the\
payment. Cf. Fleming, 881 N.E.2d at 1148. In this case, the fact\
that Song was named on the policy does not demand a different\
conclusion.\
'

var WPFootnote7 = '                   The "lent servant" doctrine provides, \
\
When a [sic] employer lends an employee to another party,\
that party becomes liable for worker\'s compensation only\
if\
(a) the employee has made a contract of hire, express\
or implied, with the second employer;\
(b) the work being done is essentially that of the\
second employer; and\
(c) the second employer has the right to control the\
details of the work.\
\
3 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson\'s Workers\' Compensation Law\
§ 67.01[1], at 67-2 (2009).\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "