(Section 287.030 RSMo. defines employer to include any number of entities, provided that any of the defined employers must have 5 or more employees to be deemed an (a major) employer, unless the employers are exempted under Section 287.090 or except certain construction employers who have one or more employees.)
In Higgins v Harold Chaney DBA Chaney Service Station, Inj. No. 95-410259 (LIRC) 2/27/03, compensation denied to owner of service station who has Workers? Compensation policy on the gas station, even though he apparently had less than 5 employees. Claimant had farmed, allegedly engaged in that, and his W/C insurance policy did not include his activities under exempt employment (farming).
In Medina v M&J&J enterprises d/b/a Luis Chop Suey, Inj. No. 94-193903 (LIRC) 3/14/02, ALJ?s finding of "major employer" (5 or more employees) reversed. Evidence presented in insufficient as a matter of law.
In McDowell v Independent Custom Fabricators, Inc., (LIRC) 2/25/02, the issue was whether the employer had presented sufficient proof to show that claimant was not working on the date of the injury. The employer relied on a certain exhibit which did not show the claimant?s name on it, the employer testifying there was no document at trial to show the client was not at work on the week in question.
(Note: Bring in a witness to testify to the actual personnel records, and document that they apply to the claimant, if you want to show that claimant was not present on the date of accident, which could well constitute a total defense).
In Pearson v Salvation Army and Treasurer of the State of Missouri, LIRC (2/25/02), claimant, an alcoholic, went through a treatment program, and actually worked as a saw operator at a plant in Arkansas, and then applied for admission to the Adult Rehabilitation Center (ARC) of the Salvation Army in St. Louis. He indicated by written statement that he was willing to voluntarily perform the services to him. He was described as a "beneficiary" and not "any employee of this center" but was given room and board, the value of which was disputed. He also got a weekly allowance for personal needs which started at $7.00 per week and rose to $20.00 per week. He was held to be an employee, providing services as a cook for 40 hours per week. The Court reviewed other State law involving the same issue, including there was employment and liability for injury.
In Spieler v Village Bel-Nor, 62 S.W.3d 457, (Mo.App. E.D. 2001), claimant, a police officer of Bel-Nor, attended a Christmas party on a non-scheduled duty day in the p.m. hours of 12/18/98, arrived with a date, she drove, he was not in uniform, but had his badge and gun. While 8 miles from the city limits of Bel-Nor he volunteered t assist at a two car accident, used his cell phone to call 911, and was struck by a passing car and severely injured.