ADJ11714452 · March 21, 2022

The WCJ's findings that both Baron HR and Source Logistics exercised control over the applicant and benefited from the employment arrangement were given great weight and supported by credible testimony and evidence, establishing a joint general and special employment relationship.

From the decision · page 3consideration appears to be whether the alleged special employer exercises control over the details of [an employee's] work. Such control strongly supports the inference that a special employment exists.' (McFarland v. Voorheis-Trindle Co., supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 705; Oxford v. Signal Oil & Gas Co., supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at p. 408; Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at p. 922.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we agree that both Baron HR and Source Logistics had the right to control applicant and exercised that control and that they both benefited from the arrangement. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)

Both Baron HR and Source Logistics exercised control over the applicant and benefited from the employment arrangement.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established a joint general and special employment relationship, supporting applicant's claim.

From the decision · page 3consideration appears to be whether the alleged special employer exercises control over the details of [an employee's] work. Such control strongly supports the inference that a special employment exists.' (McFarland v. Voorheis-Trindle Co., supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 705; Oxford v. Signal Oil & Gas Co., supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at p. 408; Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at p. 922.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we agree that both Baron HR and Source Logistics had the right to control applicant and exercised that control and that they both benefited from the arrangement. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)

Applicant was hired by Baron, sent to work at Source, and supervised by both employers.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Demonstrates dual employment and control, key to establishing liability.

From the decision · page 9Applicant's credible testimony, as well as that of the witnesses, and the documents in the record, show that applicant was in service to Baron and Source at the time of injury. He was hired by Baron who sent him to Source to work. Baron retained control over payroll, discipline and workers' compensation and both Baron and Source supervised the work activities. Source managed the worksite, its supervisors directed the work and are responsible for safety, as well as, providing the forklifts and safety gear used by all employees.

Labor Code Section 3602(d)(1)

Labor Code Section 3602(d)(1) allows an employer to secure payment of compensation on employees provided by agreement with another employer, requiring a valid and enforceable agreement and coverage.

The agreement between Baron and Source is statutory and requires both parties to be employers with coverage obligations.

From the decision · page 8Labor Code Section 3602 (d) (1) provides in pertinent part as follows:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10330

The WCJ has full power, jurisdiction and authority to hear and determine all issues of fact and law presented in the case.

The decision was rendered based on testimony, documents, and well-settled legal authority.

From the decision · page 1In any case that has been regularly assigned to a workers' compensation judge, the workers' compensation judge shall have full power, jurisdiction and authority to hear and determine all issues of fact and law presented and to issue any interim, interlocutory and final orders, findings, decisions and awards as may be necessary to the full adjudication of the case, including the fixing of the amount of the bond required in Labor Code section 3715. Orders, findings, decisions and awards issued by a workers' compensation judge shall be the orders, findings, decisions and awards of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board unless reconsideration is granted.

Labor Code Section 133

Labor Code Section 133 grants the Division of Workers' Compensation and the Appeals Board power and jurisdiction to do all things necessary or convenient in exercising their powers.

The court's jurisdiction to determine employment status is fundamental and was exercised without objection.

From the decision · page 7Source argues that the court has either exceeded or acted without authority in this matter. The jurisdiction of the court is set forth in Labor Code Section 133 as follows:

Credible testimony of applicant and witnesses, and documents showing dual control and benefit by Baron and Source.

From the decision · page 9Applicant's credible testimony, as well as that of the witnesses, and the documents in the record, show that applicant was in service to Baron and Source at the time of injury. He was hired by Baron who sent him to Source to work. Baron retained control over payroll, discipline and workers' compensation and both Baron and Source supervised the work activities. Source managed the worksite, its supervisors directed the work and are responsible for safety, as well as, providing the forklifts and safety gear used by all employees.