[B]Date Decided[/B]: May 11th, 2010
[B]Decided By[/B]: Louisiana Eastern District Court (federal)
[B]Court[/B]: U.S.D.C. E.D.LA
[B]Citation[/B]: Dinh v. Stalker 2010 WL 1930945 (E.D.La. 2010)
In April of 2002, SauDinh was injured while working aboard a barge for KYE, Inc. Dinh’s employer, Structure Services(Structure), entered into an employment out-source agreement with KYE and inthat agreement agreed to indemnify and hold KYE harmless for any claim due to negligence or injuries totheir employees.
Dinh filed suit for his injuries against KYEbut a court found that he was precluded from pursuing a tort claim against KYEbecause he was a borrowed employee. Before dismissing this suit, however, the Louisiana Commerce and TradeAssociation-Self Insurers’ Fund (LCTA) intervened seeking to recover thepayments it made to Dinh as Structure’s insurer.
Afterthe dismissal of Dinh’s suit, KYE was granted a dismissal of LCTA’s interventionsuit. The court granted the dismissal onthe grounds that the contract between KYE and Structure provided that Structurewould indemnify KYE for the compensation payments and that LCTA lacked anybasis for recovering DInh’s compensation benefits. After dismissal of it’s claim, LCTA ceasedpayment of Dinh’s benefits.
Dinhthen sought benefits under the LHWCA from KYE, under the borrowed employeedoctrine. The Administrative Law Judge determinedKYE, which was no longer in business, to be liable under the LHWCA. The ALJ then had to address the issue ofwhether LTCA as the insurer of Structure had to cover KYE because of theout-source agreement. The ALJ declinedto rule on the issue for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but the issue wasultimately resolved in favor of LTCA by a Louisiana state court.
Dinhfinally sought to enforce the ALJ’s ruling against KYE and several otherparties including Geoffrey Stalker, Joseph Hebert, and Raymundo Groot, alleged officersof KYE. Hebert filed a motion to dismissof Dinh’s claims claiming he was denied due process because he was not provided withnotice of or served with Mr. Dinh’s compensation’s claim, the March 13, 2006compensation order cannot be enforced against him. Read More…