- 52 -52
hiring each driver-employee; (2) without exception, the trucking
company client made the decision to terminate any driver-employee
whom TLC leased to it; and (3) while TLC was leasing a driver-
employee to a trucking company client, TLC had no right to lease
that driver-employee to another trucking company client and
thereby assign additional projects to such driver-employee.
On the record before us, we find that respondent impeached
the foregoing testimony of Mr. Ankerfelt. Respondent introduced
into the record an affidavit (Mr. Ankerfelt’s affidavit) that Mr.
Ankerfelt made under oath in Hix v. Minn. Workers’ Comp. Assigned
Risk Plan, 520 N.W.2d 497 (1994).40 In that affidavit, Mr.
Ankerfelt swore under oath that:
TLC has sole authority to determine the assignment of a
driver.
* * * TLC retains the sole right to discharge and
fire any of its drivers-employees [sic]. When a lessee
[trucking company client] no longer desires to lease a
TLC driver-employee, the TLC driver-employee returns to
TLC for assignment to another lessee.
Not only did respondent impeach Mr. Ankerfelt’s testimony
with Mr. Ankerfelt’s affidavit, respondent also raised other
questions about the reliability of Mr. Ankerfelt’s testimony that
TLC exercised only an advisory role in hiring each driver-em-
40Joe Hix was one of TLC’s trucking company clients. The
court in Hix v. Minn. Workers’ Comp. Assigned Risk Plan, 520
N.W.2d 497, 508 (1994), held that, for purposes of Minnesota’s
workers’ compensation laws, Joe Hix was not the employer of any
driver-employee whom he leased from TLC.
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011