ÿWPC´ Œô¯õSa,ÿCEì>›EåXÞ¼„ú_Ýh·Fëjì´{ß §€×ù.è¡dÂA’ºß‹)»ÿÎ\ßæ#ÎÓ‚¡tQm)F’NE‰Ãy~Ö%ŸÁš÷y‰€„Ié~˜'”ç™AΚ¦1÷Ôz™¥¦N¿Ò㙨k1¶ãˆZªˆŠ\mDï”s\T.õZ' ¦U*”áØ=­˜%GB™.ªwž :Zº?òl[{ü;C.Ú|žƒXMôÃDJæ‘zÙviø>$jK»ëôÞd4¤Þ¤»è9´î¹ÈÒòãv›ÒGÿ|î£ J&6þÔh³‰L™eö—;¥‘hЀùýÙb”ßÈGˆÙåX8½!úõAS½j˜ ,QMþ¿n5¥ èê×Ç8;3ïK‰i~1úûV@ìXãŠtóù÷K¾lÁøuàã‡SÏ8{¥žDP@#©”½±*Œý¯áiWGÉŠ^ËfU®uV™»½ˆd›Žk­Á_ÈS¹§åvÖh éYÃäà™¸™Eôˆc o^ë9”ÙÀKÊ<$ÕJ¢S‡Ûž°Ýb!Áûó,æôqÝ0OzÖõ½ò'7)õп¡Vð±…"1Æ„$ªÒ£¤›ÍϳÎG¯Êã8«`#!@U Na %¯ 0éµwž 4¢ ¶ Å Í NÓ ^ Õ á mã AQú 0%K 0Dp p p r´ U:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& B`Æ} 0ýC 0ý@ 0D== D3˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX0¹V$¡legalÒ°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUXXXÔÓÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑtpO'3|xHTtS'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀZ[\]_Cþÿ<<Cÿÿ(Õ(3Mb$¤¤Ý ƒV!ÝÒ°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XF<XXXÔÓÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó hÝ ƒ[A°"ÝÔ€XF<XXXÔÓÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XžüXXXF<ÔÔ€è•bçXXžüÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€æçè•bÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€18,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAµÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Õ3A°$¢¢Ý ƒV!ÝÒ°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XF<XXXÔÓÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ý(Õ3A°$££Ý ƒV!ÝÒ°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XF<XXXÔÓÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óYYYY'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒV!ÝÒ°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XF<XXXÔÓÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ°ÒÒ°ÀÒÑܰÑÑܰÑÓÓÑ8€F<XXdìdÈ8ÑÔ_Ôà@  ìàò òÔ‡¼O»XXF<Ôà@@* * àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ Ü Ðà@cc$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†XF<X»¼O‹#ÔòòˆÐ ð Ðóóó óßv€_@0,j: `€€@ÿE˜” tt¨¬Ð _ vßà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌÌÌÌÌÌCAROLYN€B.€ERWIN,€à  àà h àà À à)à  àNO.€03A1„9811„CV„00379Ð Œ ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àPlaintiff/Appellant,à  àà h àà À à)Ð dˆ  Ðv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àAppeal€As€Of€Right€From€TheÐ Pt  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à0  àANDERSON€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÐ<` (#(# ÐMETHODIST€MEDICAL€CENTERà h àà À à)Ð (L  ÐOF€OAK€RIDGE,à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð 8  Ðà  àDefendant/Appellee.à  àà h àà À à)à  àHONORABLE€JAMES€B.€SCOTT,€JR.Ð $ ÐÌÌòòÌÌÌò òFor€the€Appellant:à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFor€the€Appellee:Ð ˆ¬ Ðó óóóJ.€Anthony€Farmer€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRobert€W.€KnoltonÐ t˜ ÐKnoxvilleà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKnoxvilleÐ `„ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDà0 h àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àà0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#àà0x (# (#àSwiney,€J.Ðè x(#x(# ÐÌÌÌÌÌà@ëë'ìàò òòòÔ‡¼O»XXF<ÔOPINIONÔ#†XF<X»¼O #ԈРp&” # Ðóóó óÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€Trial€Courtððs€dismissal€of€a€negligence€action€broughtÏagainst€Methodist€Medical€Center€of€Oak€Ridge,€Defendant/Appellee,€arising€from€a€workplaceÏinjury€to€Plaintiff/Appellant,€an€employee€of€a€contract€service€provider.€€In€addition€to€filing€suitÏagainst€her€direct€employer€under€the€Tennessee€Workersðð€Compensation€Act,€Plaintiff€suedÏDefendant€in€tort,€alleging€negligence€related€to€her€workplace€injury.€€Defendant€moved€forÏdismissal€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€Rule€12.02(6),€asserting€immunity€from€tort€suit€under€the€exclusiveÏremedy€provision€of€the€Tennessee€Workersðð€Compensation€Act.€€The€Trial€Court€dismissed€theÏcause€of€action,€finding€that€Defendant€was€a€principal€contractor€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„¼113.€€For€the€reasons€herein€stated,€we€affirm€the€Trial€Courtððs€dismissal€of€Plaintiffððs€tort€action.Ð 8@26 ÐÓr Óò òÓ  ÓòòBACKGROUNDó óóóÐ Ü ÐÓõÓÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àPlaintiff€was€an€employee€of€Owen€Healthcare€on€January€9,€1997€when€she€trippedÐ  Ä Ðon€electrical€wiring€and€fell€at€work.€€At€the€time€of€Plaintiffððs€fall,€Owen€Healthcare€maintainedÐ x œ Ðbusiness€operations€on€the€premises€of€Defendant€Methodist€Medical€Center€of€Oak€Ridge€underÐ P t Ðcontract€to€provide€pharmacy€services€for€the€hospital.€€Several€departments€of€Defendant€operateÐ (L  Ðunder€similar€contracts,€where€Defendant€is€the€principal€to€the€contract€and€the€workers€areÐ $  Ðemployed€by€the€contractor.Ð Øü  ÐÓ;ÓÓÓà  àà ` àOn€September€10,€1997€Plaintiff€filed€suit€against€CNA€Insurance€Company€in€theÐ °Ô  ÐCircuit€Court€for€Knox€County€under€the€Tennessee€Workersðð€Compensation€Act.€€At€the€time,€CNAÐ ˆ¬ Ðprovided€Workersðð€Compensation€insurance€for€Plaintiffððs€employer,€Owen€Healthcare.€€TemporaryÐ `„ Ðindemnity€and€medical€benefits€under€the€Workersðð€Compensation€Act€had€been€provided€to€PlaintiffÐ 8\ Ðby€CNA.Ð 4 Ðà  àà ` àOn€January€6,€1998€Plaintiff€filed€suit€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Anderson€CountyÐ è  Ðagainst€Methodist€Medical€Center€of€Oak€Ridge€and€Anthony€Thornton€d/b/a€Tennessee€Associates.€Ð Àä ÐThe€Complaint€alleged€that€electrical€work€was€being€done€at€the€hospital,€and€wiring€lying€on€theÐ ˜ ¼ Ðfloor€was€the€cause€of€Plaintiffððs€fall.€€On€March€4,€1998€Defendant€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss,Ð p"” Ðattaching€as€exhibits€copies€of€the€Workerððs€Compensation€Complaint€filed€by€Plaintiff€and€theÐ H$l! ÐAnswer€of€CNA€Insurance€Company.€€On€July€21,€1998€Plaintiff€filed€a€response€to€DefendantððsÐ  &D # Ðmotion€to€dismiss,€citing€as€exhibit€an€attached€copy€of€portions€of€the€contract€between€DefendantÐ ø'"% Ðand€Owen€Healthcare.€€On€September€21,€1998€an€Order€of€Voluntary€Dismissal€with€full€prejudiceÐ Ð)ô#' Ðwas€filed€as€to€defendants€Anthony€Thornton€d/b/a€Tennessee€Associates€and€Tennessee€AssociatedÐ ¨+Ì%) ÐElectric,€Inc.Ð €-¤'+ Ðà  àà ` àOn€October€20,€1998€an€ð ðOpinion,€Exclusive€Remedyðð€was€filed€by€the€Trial€Court,Ð X/|)- Ðgranting€Defendantððs€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€Rule€12€motion€to€dismiss€filed€March€4,€1998.€€The€OpinionÐ 01T+/ Ðstated€that€Defendant€is€not€subject€to€a€common€law€negligence€claim€by€Plaintiff,€referencing€theÐ 3,-1 Ðexclusive€remedy€provision€of€the€Tennessee€Workersðð€Compensation€Act.€€On€November€13,€1998Ð à4/3 Ðâ âan€Order€captioned€ð ðJudgment€Dismissing€Actionðð€was€filed€incorporating€by€reference€the€OctoberÐ ¸6Ü05 Ð20€Opinion,€with€all€accrued€costs€adjudged€against€Plaintiff.€€Notice€of€this€appeal€was€filedÐ Ü ÐNovember€18,€1998,€with€attestation€of€proper€service€and€appeal€bond€for€costs.Ð ´Ø Ðâ âÓäÓÌò òÓ  ÓòòDISCUSSIONóóó óÐ x œ ÐÓ¬ÓÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àUnder€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P€Rule€12.02€Defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€was€converted€intoÐ < ` Ða€motion€for€summary€judgment€when€the€Trial€Court€considered€matters€outside€the€pleadings.€€TheÐ 8  Ðstandard€of€review€for€a€summary€judgment€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€Rule€56€is€ò òde€novoó ó,€with€noÐ ì  Ðpresumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€legal€conclusions.€€Summary€judgment€isÐ Ìð  Ðappropriate€when,€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„moving€party,Ð ¤È Ðthere€are€no€issues€of€material€fact€and€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.Ð |  ÐòòGardner€v.€Ô_ÔInsuraÔ_Ô€Property€&€Ô_ÔCasÔ_Ô.€Ins.€Co.óó,€956€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€There€is€noÐ Tx Ðdispute€concerning€the€facts€material€to€the€Trial€Courtððs€holding.Ð ,P ÐÓòÓÓÓà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€found€Defendant€to€be€a€principal€contractor€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ( Ððð€50„6„113,€thus€privileged€to€invoke€the€exclusive€remedy€provision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„108Ð Ü Ðand€entitled€to€dismissal€of€the€tort€action€by€Plaintiff.€€Plaintiff€argues€that€Defendant€does€not€meetÐ ´Ø Ðthe€statutory€requirements€as€interpreted€by€the€Tennessee€courts,€and€thus€remains€a€proper€partyÐ Œ!° Ðto€tort€action€by€Plaintiff.Ð d#ˆ  ÐÓýÓÓÓà  àà ` àThe€primary€cases€cited€as€supporting€Plaintiffððs€position€are€òòÔ_ÔStrattonÔ_Ô€v.€United€Inter„Ð <%`" ÐMountain€Telephoneóó,€695€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1985)€and€òòBarber€v.€Ralston€Purinaóó,€825€S.W.2d€96Ð '8!$ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€òòÔ_ÔStrattonÔ_Ôóó€sets€forth€six€factors€used€to€apply€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„113€toÐ ì(#& Ðdetermine€whether€an€injured€worker€is€an€employee€or€independent€contractor.€€ð ðIn€analyzingÐ Ä*è$( Ðwhether€the€relationship€is€that€of€employer„employee€or€that€of€independent€contractor,€this€CourtÐ œ,À&* Ðhas€said€that€the€following€are€factors€to€be€considered€and€that€no€one€factor€is€necessarilyÐ t.˜(, ÐÔ_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô:€(1)€right€to€control€the€conduct€of€work;€(2)€right€of€termination;€(3)€method€of€payment;Ð L0p*. Ð(4)€whether€alleged€employee€furnishes€his€own€helpers;€(5)€whether€alleged€employee€furnishes€hisÐ $2H,0 Ðown€tools;€and€(6)€whether€one€is€doing€ððwork€for€€another.ðððð€òòÔ_ÔStrattonÔ_Ôóó,€695€S.W.2d€at€950ò òó ó.Ð ü3 .2 Ðà  àà ` à€€òòBarberóó€examines€the€application€of€the€principal€contractor€statute€when€the€injuredÐ Ô5ø/4 Ðworker€is€employed€by€a€subcontractor,€and€asserting€a€claim€against€the€principal€to€the€contract.€Ð ¬7Ð16 ÐPlaintiff€asserts€that€the€two€factors€analyzed€in€òòBarberóó€support€a€finding€that€Defendant€is€not€aÐ Ü Ðprincipal€contractor€under€the€facts€at€bar:€ð ð.€.€.€(1)€whether€the€work€being€performed€by€theÐ ´Ø Ðcontractor€in€question€[€]€is€the€same€type€of€work€usually€performed€by€the€company€(defendant)Ð Œ ° Ðor€is€part€of€the€regular€business€of€the€company€and€(2)€whether€the€company€(defendant)€has€theÐ d ˆ Ðright€to€control€employees€of€the€contractor€[€].ðð€òòBarberóó,€825€S.W.2d€at€99.ò òó ó€€The€òòBarberóó€Court€foundÐ < ` Ðno€dispute€that€the€plaintiff€was€not€doing€work€usually€done€by€employees€of€the€defendant,€andÐ 8  Ðemphasized€that€the€key€to€analyzing€similar€cases€is€the€right€of€the€principal€to€the€contract€toÐ ì  Ðcontrol€the€employee.€€ð ðIn€òòÔ_ÔStrattonÔ_Ôóó,€the€Court€notes€that€no€single€test€is€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€of€this€issue,€butÐ Äè  Ðthe€right€to€control€the€conduct€of€the€work€has€been€repeatedly€stressed.€€The€Court€further€explainsÐ œÀ Ðthat€the€test€is€not€whether€the€right€to€control€the€conduct€of€the€work€was€exercised,€but€simplyÐ t˜ Ðwhether€the€right€exists.ðð€òòId.óóÐ Lp Ðà  àà ` àPlaintiff€cites€òòByrd€v.€Ô_ÔMahleÔ_Ô,€Incóó.,€No.€03A01„9301„CV„00006,€1993€WL€305807Ð $H Ð(Tenn.€App.€1993)(perm.€app.€denied),€to€support€her€argument.€€Plaintiff€uses€this€Courtððs€analysisÐ ü  Ðin€òòByrdóó€to€assert€that€the€principal€contractor€statute€does€not€apply€to€Defendant€under€the€facts€ofÐ Ôø Ðthis€case,€claiming€that€Ô% € ÔDefendant€only€contracted€for€an€end€result,€and€did€not€exercise€control€overÐ ¬Ð Ðthe€employees€of€Owen€Healthcare.€€òòByrdóó€relied€upon€the€six€factors€set€forth€in€òòÔ_ÔStrattonÔ_Ôóó€in€reversingÐ „!¨ Ðthe€trial€courtððs€finding€that€defendant€Ô_ÔMahleÔ_Ô€was€not€a€principal€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„113.€Ð \#€  ÐThe€Court€in€Ô_ÔMahleÔ_Ô€found€that€five€of€the€six€factors€supported€a€finding€of€no€coverage€under€theÐ 4%X" ÐAct,€and€cited€as€further€support€that€Defendantððs€right€to€control€the€work€of€the€subcontractorÐ  '0!$ Ðð ðextended€only€to€insuring€that€the€end€result€conformed€to€Ô_ÔMahleÔ_Ôððs€plans€and€specifications.ððÐ ä(#& Ðà  àà ` àIt€is€important€to€note€that€a€very€different€relationship€existed€in€òòMahleóó,€as€theÐ ¼*à$( Ðdefendant€hired€a€general€contractor€to€manage€a€construction€project€at€defendantððs€plant,€theÐ ”,¸&* Ðgeneral€contractor€hired€a€subcontractor€to€perform€plumbing€and€mechanical€work,€and€theÐ l.(, Ðsubcontractor€hired€plaintiff€Byrd€as€an€employee.€€Here,€Defendant€hired€Owen€Healthcare,€andÐ D0h*. ÐOwen€Healthcare€hired€Plaintiff€as€an€employee.€€Defendant€stands€in€the€position€of€the€generalÐ 2@,0 Ðcontractor€in€òòÔ_ÔMahleÔ_Ôóó,€not€in€the€same€position€as€Ô_ÔMahleÔ_Ô.€€It€is€this€extra€removal€from€the€workÐ ô3.2 Ðâ âperformed€that€took€Ô_ÔMahleÔ_Ô€out€of€the€Workersðð€Compensation€coverage€as€a€principal€under€Tenn.Ð Ì5ð/4 ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„113,€thus€barring€application€of€the€exclusive€remedy€provision€of€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ü ÐAnn.€ðð€50„6„108€to€plaintiff€Byrdððs€negligence€claims€in€tort.Ð ´Ø Ðâ âà  àà ` àPlaintiff€claims€that€Owen€Healthcare€was€not€providing€a€service€performed€byÐ Œ ° ÐDefendant€and€thus€fails€the€first€of€the€two€standards€in€òòBarber,óó€citing€the€agreement€between€OwenÐ d ˆ Ðand€Defendant.€€Plaintiffððs€argument€turns€on€the€point€that€Owen€is€the€exclusive€provider€ofÐ < ` Ðpharmacy€services€for€Defendant,€and€had€no€right€to€control€the€employees€of€Owen.€€Plaintiff€alsoÐ 8  Ðasserts€that€Defendant€was€not€performing€work€for€another,€thus€fitting€into€the€facts€under€òòByrdóó.Ð ì  Ðà  àà ` àDefendant€avers€that€hospitals€routinely€enter€into€exclusive€contracts€withÐ Äè  Ðindependent€contractors€to€provide€particular€healthcare€services€within€the€hospital,€and€this€routineÐ œÀ Ðbusiness€practice€of€hospitals€makes€this€a€case€of€first€impression.€€Defendant€overstates€thisÐ t˜ Ðcircumstance€of€fact,€as€there€is€no€need€to€make€such€a€broad€finding€in€order€to€resolve€the€issueÐ Lp Ðon€appeal.Ð $H Ðà  àà ` àDefendantððs€argument€for€tort€immunity€centers€upon€the€contractual€relationship€withÐ ü  ÐOwen€Healthcare,€and€the€application€of€the€òòStrattonóó€employee€control€analysis.€€Defendant€assertsÐ Ôø Ðthat€application€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„113€is€based€upon€work€that€is€the€subject€of€the€contractÐ ¬Ð Ðbeing€performed€on€the€premises€of€the€principal,€and€whether€the€contracted€work€is€part€of€theÐ „!¨ Ðregular€business€of€the€principal.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Defendant€owned€the€premises€where€theÐ \#€  Ðinjury€occurred.€€Defendant€counters€Plaintiffððs€argument€that€the€pharmacy€was€an€insular€operationÐ 4%X" Ðby€stating€that€ð ðthe€operation€of€a€hospital€pharmacy€for€the€benefit€of€the€patients€at€its€hospitalÐ  '0!$ Ðfacilityðð€is€integral€to€the€overall€provision€of€healthcare€to€the€patients€of€Defendant.€€Ð ä(#& Ðà  àà ` àThe€determinative€issues€are€whether€Defendant€is€a€Principal,€IntermediateÐ ¼*à$( ÐContractor€or€Subcontractor€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„113(a),€and€whether€the€injury€occurredÐ ”,¸&* Ðon,€in,€or€about€the€statutory€ð ðpremisesðð€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„113(d)€so€as€to€bar€recoveryÐ l.(, Ðunder€the€exclusive€remedy€provision€of€the€Workersðð€Compensation€Act.Ð D0h*. Ðà  àà ` àTaking€the€second€issue€first,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€injury€at€issue€occurred€on€theÐ 2@,0 Ðpremises€of€Defendant,€and€that€Defendant€had€the€right€to€control€the€premises.€òòóó€Resolution€of€theÐ ô3.2 Ðremaining€issue€depends€on€whether€the€relationship€between€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€createsÐ Ì5ð/4 Ðapplicability€of€coverage€under€the€Tennessee€Workersðð€Compensation€Act.€The€parties€both€citedÐ ¤7È16 Ðthe€Agreement€between€Owen€Healthcare,€Inc.€and€Defendant,€a€portion€of€which€was€made€exhibitÐ Ü Ðto€Plaintiffððs€brief€on€appeal,€as€establishing€the€bounds€of€this€relationship.Ð ´Ø Ðà  àà ` àAll€that€remains€is€to€apply€the€factors€under€òòÔ_ÔStrattonÔ_Ô/Barberóó€to€the€Agreement€atÐ Œ ° Ðissue.€€The€first€factor€in€theòò€Barberóó€analysis€is€whether€the€work€being€performed€by€the€contractorÐ d ˆ Ðin€question€is€the€same€type€of€work€usually€performed€by€the€defendant,€or€part€of€the€regularÐ < ` Ðbusiness€of€defendant.€€A€key€to€the€analysis€of€this€issue€is€whether€the€pharmacy€operation€onÐ 8  ÐDefendantððs€premises€is€an€insular€operation€and€not€the€same€type€of€work€usually€performed€byÐ ì  ÐDefendant,€as€asserted€by€Plaintiff.€€Although€òòStrattonóó€cites€several€cases€in€support€of€this€point,Ð Äè  Ðthe€most€instructive€for€the€issue€on€appeal€is€òòHendrix€v.€Ray„Ser€Dyeing€Coóó.,€224€Tenn.€690,€462Ð œÀ ÐS.W.2d€483€(Tenn.€1979).€€In€òòHendrixóó€defendant€contracted€with€the€injured€workerððs€employer€toÐ t˜ Ðpaint€a€smokestack€at€defendantððs€plant.€€The€Court€looked€to€the€fact€that€not€only€was€defendantÐ Lp Ðð ðnot€engaged€in€the€business€of€painting,ðð€but€also€not€engaged€in€ð ðother€maintenance€workðð€inÐ $H Ðfinding€that€the€injury€at€issue€did€not€arise€out€of€the€same€type€of€work€usually€performed€by,€orÐ ü  Ðpart€of€the€regular€business€of,€the€defendant.€€Analogizing€the€reasoning€in€òòHendrixóó€to€the€issue€onÐ Ôø Ðappeal€would€require€a€finding€that€pharmacy€service€is€so€removed€from€the€usual€business€ofÐ ¬Ð ÐDefendant€that€it€would€not€be€part€of€the€other€healthcare€work€that€would€be€considered€part€of€theÐ „!¨ Ðð ðregular€businessðð€of€Defendant.€€In€short,€it€would€require€this€Court€to€find€that€pharmacy€serviceÐ \#€  Ðin€a€hospital€setting€is€not€the€same€ò òtypeó ó€of€work€Defendant€usually€performs.€€The€record€does€notÐ 4%X" Ðsupport€such€a€finding.Ð '8!$ Ðà  àà ` àThe€facts€in€the€record€do€not€support€a€finding€that€the€pharmacy€service€in€theÐ ì(#& ÐAgreement€is€not€part€of€the€regular€business€of€Defendant.€€The€contract€specifies€that€OwenÐ Ä*è$( ÐHealthcare€ð ð.€.€.€will,€as€a€service,€own€the€inventory€and€operate€a€pharmacy€serviceÐ œ,À&* Ð(ð ðPHARMACYðð)€on€the€premises€of€HOSPITAL€for€the€purpose€of€supplying€hospital€pharmacyÐ t.˜(, Ðitems€.€.€.€to€HOSPITAL€to€be€administered€to€HOSPITALððS€patients€upon€proper€order€of€lawfullyÐ L0p*. Ðauthorized€persons.ðð€òò€óóIt€is€apparent€from€the€wording€of€this€preamble€that€the€ð ðserviceðð€is€not€anÐ $2H,0 Ðinsular€one€as€asserted€by€Plaintiff,€but€is€only€brought€into€operation€by€ð ðproper€order€of€lawfullyÐ ü3 .2 Ðauthorized€persons,ðð€and€that€the€object€of€the€services€is€the€patients€of€the€hospital,€not€the€hospitalÐ Ô5ø/4 Ðitself.Ð ¬7Ð16 Ðà  àà ` àIn€order€for€Plaintiffððs€argument€to€stand,€Defendant€itself€must€be€the€object€of€theÐ Ü Ðcontract€at€issue.€€In€òòByrd€v.€Ô_ÔMahleÔ_Ôóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€Court€found€that€the€object€of€the€contract€was€certainÐ ´Ø Ðimprovements€to€defendantððs€physical€plant,€making€defendant€only€interested€in€the€end€result€ofÐ Œ ° Ðthe€contract€between€plaintiffððs€employer€and€the€general€contractor.€€Here,€the€òòÔ_ÔStrattonÔ_Ôóó€factor€ofÐ d ˆ Ðð ðwork€for€anotherðð€is€inseparable€from€the€contract€at€issue,€in€that€the€hospital€does€not€use€orÐ < ` Ðconsume€the€pharmacy€services€and/or€pharmaceuticals€for€its€own€use€or€for€improvement€of€itsÐ 8  Ðphysical€plant,€but€rather€as€part€of€the€overall€healthcare€treatment€provided€to€the€patients.€It€is€theÐ ì  Ðpatients€of€Defendant€who€are€set€out€in€the€preamble€as€the€object€of€the€services€contemplated€inÐ Äè  Ðthe€contract.€€Although€Owen€Healthcare€was€the€exclusive€provider€for€the€scope€of€the€contractÐ œÀ Ðwith€Defendant,€it€is€apparent€that€pharmacy€service€is€not€an€insular€operation,€but€part€of€a€processÐ t˜ Ðof€the€regular€business€of€Defendant€in€providing€healthcare€services.Ð Lp ÐÓG"ÓÓÓà  àà ` àThe€second€òòBarberóó€factor€is€whether€the€defendant€has€the€right€to€control€theÐ $H Ðemployees€of€the€contractor,€applying€the€sixòò€Ô_ÔStrattonÔ_Ôóó€factors€to€the€facts€of€the€individual€case.Ð ü  ÐÓyUÓà  àà ` à(1)€Right€to€control€the€conduct€of€the€work.Ð Ôø ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àUnder€the€Agreement,€as€previously€discussed,€the€pharmacy€operation€is€onlyÐ ¬Ð Ðauthorized€to€provide€service€ð ðupon€proper€order€of€lawfully€authorized€persons.ðð€€Therefore,€theÐ „!¨ Ðconduct€of€an€employee€of€the€pharmacy€is€not€only€under€the€right€of€control€of€Defendant,€suchÐ \#€  Ðemployee€is€not€allowed€to€conduct€any€independent€activity€under€the€contract.€€Also,€control€byÐ 4%X" ÐDefendant€of€the€conduct€of€the€work€is€shown€by€the€requirement€that€Owen€Healthcare€is€toÐ  '0!$ Ðprovide€a€continuing€education€program,€to€work€with€Defendant€in€cost€control€efforts€and€establishÐ ä(#& Ða€committee€ð ðwith€HOSPITALððS€approvalðð€and€support,€provide€performance€reports€documentingÐ ¼*à$( Ðspecific€operational€functions,€including€ð ðinterdepartmental€communication,ðð€ð ð[d]rug€order€turn„Ð ”,¸&* Ðaround€time,ðð€ð ð[i]nservice€education,ðð€and€record€keeping€assistance€to€other€departments€ofÐ l.(, ÐDefendant.€€Thus,€under€the€terms€of€the€Agreement,€Defendant€retained€significant€right€to€controlÐ D0h*. Ðthe€conduct€of€the€work€of€the€employees€of€Owen€Healthcare.Ð 2@,0 ÐÓWÓà  àà ` à(2)€Right€of€termination.€Ð ô3.2 ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àThe€right€of€a€principal€to€terminate€employees€of€the€employer€under€the€contractÐ Ì5ð/4 Ðat€issue€has€been€addressed€in€the€cases€previously€cited.€€The€contract€reads€in€pertinent€part,Ð ¤7È16 Ðð ðOWEN€agrees€to€replace€such€employee€upon€reasonable€demand€of€HOSPITAL.ðð€€This€clause€setsÐ Ü Ðforth€the€right€of€Defendant€to€have€Owen€Healthcare€employees€terminated.Ð ´Ø ÐÓŽ\Óà  àà ` à(3)€Method€of€payment.Ð Œ ° ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àThe€Agreement€specifies€that€employees€of€Owen€Healthcare€are€to€be€paid€by€OwenÐ d ˆ ÐHealthcare.Ð < ` ÐÓÅ^Óà  àà ` à(4)€Whether€alleged€employee€furnishes€his€own€helpers.€Ð 8  Ðà  àÌÓÓà  àà ` àAs€for€ð ðhelpers,ðð€while€the€term€does€not€appear€in€the€portions€of€the€AgreementÐ ì  Ðexhibited€by€Plaintiff,€the€burden€is€upon€Defendant€to€provide€to€Owen€Healthcare€janitorialÐ Äè  Ðservices,€receiving€and€storage€services,€in„hospital€telephone€service,€and€maintenance€services.€Ð œÀ ÐIt€would€appear€that€any€ð ðhelpersðð€would€fall€under€the€category€of€ð ðother€personnel€as€needed€toÐ t˜ Ðoperate€PHARMACY.ðð€€However,€as€discussed€above,€employees€of€Owen€Healthcare€under€theÐ Lp Ðpreamble€to€the€Agreement€are€to€supply€ð ðpharmacy€itemsðð€ð ðto€HOSPITALðð€to€be€administered€toÐ $H ÐHOSPITALððS€patients€.€.€..ðð€€It€would€appear€that€the€administration€to€patients€of€such€pharmacyÐ ü  Ðitems€would€be€carried€out€by€others,€presumably€employees€of€Defendant€or€another€contractingÐ Ôø Ðentity.€€Therefore,€as€the€Agreement€sets€out€that€Owen€Healthcare€employees€are€participating€inÐ ¬Ð Ða€work€process€rather€than€providing€a€complete€end€result€themselves,€this€analysis€is€more€on€pointÐ „!¨ Ðwith€the€holding€of€òòCarpenter€v.€Hooker€Chemical€&€Plastics€Corpóó.,€553€S.W.2d€356€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð \#€  ÐApp.€1977),€where€this€Court€found€that€work€partly€done€by€employees€of€a€subcontractor€and€partlyÐ 4%X" Ðdone€by€employees€of€the€defendant€fell€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„113,€barring€tort€claimsÐ  '0!$ Ðunder€the€exclusive€remedy€provision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„108.Ð ä(#& ÐÓü_Óà  àà ` à(5)€Whether€alleged€employee€furnishes€his€own€tools.Ð ¼*à$( ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àAlthough€this€element€most€often€arises€in€cases€determining€whether€the€injuredÐ ”,¸&* Ðworker€is€an€employee€or€independent€contractor,€under€the€Agreement€at€issue€Owen€HealthcareÐ l.(, Ðis€to€provide,€as€Plaintiff€points€out,€ð ðoperational€support€for€current€pharmacy€computer€service,ððÐ D0h*. Ðand€ð ðadditional€pharmacy€equipment€and€fixtures.ðð€€However,€by€the€plain€wording€of€theÐ 2@,0 ÐAgreement€the€computer€equipment€to€be€supported€was€already€in€place,€and€thus€ð ðtoolsðð€providedÐ ô3.2 Ðby€Defendant.€€Also,€the€addition€of€equipment€and€fixtures€is€to€be€done€ð ðwith€HOSPITALððSÐ Ì5ð/4 Ðapproval,ðð€indicating€Defendantððs€right€to€control€the€conduct€of€the€work€performed.Ð ¤7È16 ÐÓþfÓà  àà ` à(6)€Whether€one€is€doing€ððwork€for€€another.ððÐ Ü ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àPlaintiff€argues€that€Defendant€was€not€doing€work€for€another€under€the€AgreementÐ ´Ø Ðat€issue.€òòóó€However,€as€discussed€above,€the€preamble€to€the€Agreement€clearly€identifiesÐ Œ ° Ðð ðHOSPITALððS€patientsðð€as€the€object€of€the€activities€under€the€contract.€€Also€as€previouslyÐ d ˆ Ðdiscussed,€the€pharmacy€service€is€not€an€insular€activity,€but€part€of€a€work€process,€directed€byÐ < ` Ðothers€(ð ðlawfully€authorized€personsðð),€incorporating€the€efforts€of€others€(ð ðPharmacy/NursingÐ 8  Ðinterdepartmental€communications,ðð€ð ðPharmacy,€Nursing,€and€Business€Office€medicationÐ ì  Ðadministration€record€keepingðð),€ð ðfor€the€purpose€of€supplying€hospital€pharmacy€items€.€.€.€toÐ Äè  ÐHOSPITAL€to€be€administered€to€HOSPITALððs€patients.ðð€€Under€this€analysis,€not€only€is€the€objectÐ œÀ Ðof€the€work€by€employees€of€Owen€Healthcare€ð ðwork€for€anotherðð€other€than€Defendant,€but€also€itÐ t˜ Ðappears€that€only€the€support€activities€described€in€the€Agreement,€such€as€accounting€and€recordÐ Lp Ðkeeping,€are€directed€to€the€benefit€of€Defendant€rather€than€to€another.Ð $H ÐÓÇjÓÓÓà  àà ` àð ðWhen€the€facts€are€essentially€undisputed,€the€issue€of€whether€one€is€an€employeeÐ ü  Ðor€an€independent€contractor€is€one€of€law.ðð€òòBarberóó,€825€S.W.2d€at€100,€citing€òòÔ_ÔStrattonÔ_Ôóó,€695€S.W.2dÐ Ôø Ðat€953.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€injury€at€issue€occurred€on€the€premises€of€Defendant.€€Applying€theÐ ¬Ð Ðguidance€of€the€cases€cited€above,€we€hold€that€Defendant€is€a€Principal€or€Intermediate€ContractorÐ „!¨ Ðunder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„113(a),€thus€a€statutory€employer€for€purposes€of€the€TennesseeÐ \#€  ÐWorkersðð€Compensation€Act,€and€Plaintiffððs€exclusive€remedy€€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„108Ð 4%X" Ðbars€her€tort€claims€against€Defendant.Ð  '0!$ ÐÓpÓÌò òÓ  ÓòòCONCLUSIONó ó€óóÐ Ð)ô#' ÐÓ{sÓÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€did€not€err€in€granting€Defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss.€€Defendant€isÐ ˜,¼&* Ða€principal€contractor€under€the€relevant€statutes€and€case€law,€barring€Plaintiffððs€tort€action€underÐ p.”(, Ðthe€exclusive€remedy€provision€of€the€Tennessee€Workersðð€Compensation€Act.€€The€Judgment€of€theÐ H0l*. ÐTrial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€the€cause€remanded€for€collection€of€costs€below.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÐ  2D,0 Ðadjudged€against€the€appellant.Ð ø3.2 ÐÓÂsÓÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à______________________________Ð ¼6à05 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€J.Ð ¨7Ì16 ÐÐ ”8¸27 ЇÌCONCUR:Ð Èì ÐÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________Ð P t ÐHERSCHEL€P.€FRANKS,€J.Ð < ` ÐÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________Ð Äè  ÐCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€J.