A crane cable snapped. A worker was paralyzed. Then the company’s own filings backfired
Edwards Wood Products denied employing a sawmill worker - then tried to use that same relationship as a legal shield.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals was not persuaded.
In a decision filed November 4, 2026, the court affirmed a trial court ruling that Edwards Wood Products could not block a negligence lawsuit by claiming the injured worker was its employee for workers’ compensation purposes. The problem: the company had repeatedly told the state’s Industrial Commission that no employment relationship existed between it and the worker. It could not, the court held, turn around and claim one in civil court.
The worker was employed by CDT HR, a staffing agency that assigned him to Edwards’ sawmill in Laurinburg, North Carolina, as a mechanic. He started on September 14, 2023. Eight days later, at around 5:30 a.m., he was part of a three-man crew changing saw blades when a crane cable snapped. The steel blade holder fell and struck him. He was airlifted to UNC Hospital. A blood sample taken at 7:50 a.m. showed a blood-alcohol level of .186.
He was permanently paralyzed from the waist down.
The worker filed a workers’ compensation claim against CDT. During those proceedings, Edwards fought a subpoena for video footage of the incident, telling the Industrial Commission in its filings that “an employer-employee relationship has never existed” between it and the worker, and that the worker was injured “while employed by [CDT] at a facility owned by [Edwards].” Edwards went further, arguing the Commission should not help advance “a potential civil action” against it.
Then came the civil suit. The worker filed negligence and gross negligence claims against Edwards in September 2024, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Edwards responded by raising a defense it had already contradicted - that the worker was effectively its employee under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act, which would bar any civil lawsuit.
The argument relied on the “special employer” doctrine. Under that framework, a worker supplied by a staffing agency can sometimes be treated as the employee of the company they are assigned to. If that relationship exists, both the staffing agency and the host company are shielded from negligence suits - the worker is limited to workers’ comp benefits.
To establish that kind of relationship, North Carolina courts apply a three-part test. The first question is whether the worker had a hiring contract - formal or informal - with the host company. The court did not need to go further.
The staffing agreement between CDT and Edwards placed hiring, payroll, benefits, and workers’ compensation squarely with CDT. Edwards’ own corporate representative testified that the worker was CDT’s employee at the time of the incident. The worker himself testified that CDT was “the one who hired” him. And Edwards had told the Industrial Commission - twice, across two separate filings - that no employment relationship existed.
“Defendant cannot disclaim an employment relationship before the Industrial Commission and then rely upon that same relationship in superior court to invoke the exclusivity provision of the Act,” the court wrote.
Edwards also challenged the trial court’s handling of two other issues: whether the worker’s own negligence contributed to the accident, and whether there was enough evidence to support punitive damages. The Court of Appeals declined to reach either question, finding those rulings were mid-case decisions that could not be appealed until the trial court reaches a final judgment. Edwards had not made the case for an exception.
The underlying negligence case remains pending.
For HR teams that rely on staffing agencies, the takeaway is practical: the legal position a company takes on whether a temp worker is “theirs” needs to be consistent across every forum.
