Cited by

Although Brewer did not physically supervise or direct Moore during his pre-trip inspection, “the decisive factor is the right to supervise and control, not the exercise of that right.” see, e.g., Lee, ___ Ariz. at ___, ¶¶ 34-36, ___ P.3d at ___ 2015 WL 1813948, at *9.

-18, -26 (App. 1985) (explaining the admission that one party is the employee’s employer does not “prevent” another party from being the employee’s employer).

See Stephens v. Textron, Inc.

Inmon v. Crane Rental Servs., Inc., ¶ 11 , , 418 n. 2, , 1226 n. 2 (App.1985) (citing Smith v. Kelly Labor Serv., 239 So.2d 685 (La.Ct.App.1970)).

) (grower, who was deemed employer pursuant to lent employee doctrine, also deemed immune from suit brought by temporary agricultural worker); , (temporary employer that was required to provide workers’ compensation coverage deemed immune from suit brought by employee it would have been obliged to cover); -20 , -28 (App.1985) (hospital, deemed an employer, is immune from suit by nurse).

See Avila, 179 Ariz. at 499 , 880 P.2d at 719 (labor contractor employed lent employee and paid his wages; employee impliedly consented to employment with special employer); Lindsey, 161 Ariz. at 458-59 , 778 P.2d at 1354-55 (employee of Manpower consented to employment with special employer); , (nurse employed by temporary medical personnel agency had implied contract of hire with hospital to which she was assigned.)

-505 , -25 (App.1994) (discussion of client employer as special employer entitled to tort immunity); -59 , -55 (App.1989) (addressing immunity of construction equipment seller from civil suit by temporary employee supplied by temporary services employer); -420 , -28 (App.1985) (addressing immunity of hospital from civil suit by nurse supplied by medical personnel services employer).

Id.; , , 417 n. 2, , 1225 n. 2 (App.1985).

Anton v. Industrial Comm’n, 141 Ariz. at 568, 688 P.2d at 194 .