Barber

Barber v. Kone, Inc.

Good Law
118 F. App'x 276
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 21, 2004No. 03-16225; D.C. No. CV-02-00939-PMPCalifornia435 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

1. As an employee of Universal Building Maintenance (UBM), a contractor of the United States, Barber is considered an employee of the United States for purposes of Nevada workers’ compensation law, see Nev.Rev.Stat. § 616A.210(1); see also id. § 616A.020(5), unless the United States is in the same “trade, business, profession, or occupation” as UBM, id. § 616B.603(1). The United States is in the janitorial profession if it “normally” provides janitorial services. See Oliver v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, 111 Nev. 1338 , 905 P.2d 168, 175 (1995) (per curiam) (quoting Meers v. Haughton Elevator, 101 Nev. 283 , 701 P.2d 1006, 1007 (1985) (per curiam) (“ ‘The test ... is whether [the contracted-out] activity is, in that business, normally carried on through employees rather than independent contractors.’ ” (quoting Bassett Furniture Indus., Inc. v. McReynolds, 216 Va. 897 , 224 S.E.2d 323, 326 (1976) (quoting Shell Oil Co. v. Leftwich, 212 Va. 715 , 187 S.E.2d 162, 167 (1972) (quoting Arthur Larson, 1A The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 49.12, at 872-73 (emphasis added)))))).

*278 Federal jurisdiction is presumed not to exist “unless the contrary affirmatively appears.”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.