borrowed servant rule in Wisconsin

2007"We conclude, however, that the dual liability approach, although having some merit, does not offer a simple and easily applicable alternative to the borrowed servant rule, and we decline to substitute it for the present rule." Id. at 146 .

2007"We conclude, however, that the dual liability approach, although having some merit, does not offer a simple and easily applicable alternative to the borrowed servant rule, and we decline to substitute it for the present rule." Id. at 146 , 306 N.W.2d 62 .

2007Thus, in factual circumstances such as those present here, the correct test is to determine whether Dr. Lindemann was the "borrowed employee" of MCWAH. ¶ 22 The seminal case defining a "borrowed employee" is Seaman Body Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 204 Wis. 157 , 235 N.W. 433 (1931).

2007Thus, in factual circumstances such as those present here, the correct test is to determine whether Dr. Lindemann was the "borrowed employee" of MCWAH. ¶ 22 The seminal case defining a "borrowed employee" is Seaman Body Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 204 Wis. 157 , 235 N.W. 433 (1931).

1989In Freeman v. Krause Milling Co., 43 Wis. 2d 392 , 394 n. 2, 168 N.W.2d 599, 600 (1969), the court said: "The court has given some thought to a revision of the rule but has determined to hold to its precedents until persuaded a change is justified." In DePratt v. Sergio, 102 Wis. 2d 141, 146 , 306 N.W.2d 62, 65 (1981), the court conceded that "the traditional borrowed servant rule has deficiencies in theory and in application." In Meka , the court refused to hold that as a matter of law in labor-broker cases the loaned employee becomes the employee of the labor-broker's customer.

1989In Freeman v. Krause Milling Co., 43 Wis. 2d 392 , 394 n. 2, 168 N.W.2d 599, 600 (1969), the court said: "The court has given some thought to a revision of the rule but has determined to hold to its precedents until persuaded a change is justified." In DePratt v. Sergio, 102 Wis. 2d 141, 146 , 306 N.W.2d 62, 65 (1981), the court conceded that "the traditional borrowed servant rule has deficiencies in theory and in application." In Meka , the court refused to hold that as a matter of law in labor-broker cases the loaned employee becomes the employee of the labor-broker's customer.

1981See Skornia v. Highway Pavers, Inc., 39 Wis.2d 293 , 159 N.W.2d 76 (1968); Meka v. Falk Corp., 102 Wis. 2d 148, 152-53, n. 9 , 306 N.W.2d 65 (1981). 4 DePratt v. John A. Sergio, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals filed June 16, 1980. 5 We did not grant plaintiff’s petition to review in order to reexamine the application of the well recognized legal tests relating to loaned employees to the facts of this case.

1981See Skornia v. Highway Pavers, Inc., 39 Wis.2d 293 , 159 N.W.2d 76 (1968); Meka v. Falk Corp., 102 Wis. 2d 148, 152-53, n. 9 , 306 N.W.2d 65 (1981). 4 DePratt v. John A. Sergio, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals filed June 16, 1980. 5 We did not grant plaintiff’s petition to review in order to reexamine the application of the well recognized legal tests relating to loaned employees to the facts of this case.

1989The court said, however: We do not adopt such a rule although we recognize that the tests this court has adopted to determine when the borrowing employer becomes a special employer "when applied to specific factual situations" result in distinctions which "are sometimes slight" and in decisions which are "well-nigh irreconcilable." [Freeman at 394 , 168 N.W.2d at 600 .] See 1C [Larson], The Law of Workmen's Compensation sec. 48.23 (1980). 102 Wis. 2d at 158 n. 13, 306 N.W.2d at 71.

1989The court said, however: We do not adopt such a rule although we recognize that the tests this court has adopted to determine when the borrowing employer becomes a special *682 employer "when applied to specific factual situations" result in distinctions which "are sometimes slight" and in decisions which are "well-nigh irreconcilable." [Freeman] at 394, 168 N.W.2d at 600 .] See 1C [Larson], The Law of Workmen's Compensation sec. 48.23 (1980). 102 Wis. 2d at 158 n. 13, 306 N.W.2d at 71.

1981See Skornia v. Highway Pavers, Inc., 39 Wis.2d 293 , 159 N.W.2d 76 (1968); Meka v. Falk Corp., 102 Wis. 2d 148, 152-53, n. 9 , 306 N.W.2d 65 (1981). 4 DePratt v. John A. Sergio, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals filed June 16, 1980. 5 We did not grant plaintiff’s petition to review in order to reexamine the application of the well recognized legal tests relating to loaned employees to the facts of this case.

1981See Skornia v. Highway Pavers, Inc., 39 Wis.2d 293 , 159 N.W.2d 76 (1968); Meka v. Falk Corp., 102 Wis. 2d 148, 152-53, n. 9 , 306 N.W.2d 65 (1981). 4 DePratt v. John A. Sergio, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals filed June 16, 1980. 5 We did not grant plaintiff’s petition to review in order to reexamine the application of the well recognized legal tests relating to loaned employees to the facts of this case.