What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ's findings of employment status and injury compensability affirmed.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's March 25, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders regarding employment status and injury compensability; WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the petition; the Appeals Board timely acted on the petition on July 7, 2025.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony showed defendant's control and supervision over work, and defendant failed to rebut presumption of employment under Labor Code section 2750.5 and Borello factors.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the March 25, 2025, Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that the applicant was an employee of Portuguese Fraternal Society of America and SES Hall on March 29, 2018 when he sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the left wrist. All other issues were deferred.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant testified that defendant's representative supervised and controlled his work schedule and reviewed his work.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established the primary factor of control under Borello, supporting employment status.
Applicant did not have a contractor's license and did not operate an established painting business.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the presumption of employment under Labor Code section 2750.5 and rebutted independent contractor status.
Defendant presented no witnesses or documentary evidence to rebut applicant's testimony or establish independent contractor status.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of contrary evidence upheld the presumption of employment and credibility of applicant's testimony.
From the decision · page 12The burden of proof is a fundamental aspect of workers' compensation litigation. The party holding the affirmative on an issue has the burden of proof (See Labor Code, Section 5705). The level of proof required in workers' compensation matters is a "preponderance of the evidence" (See Labor Code, Section 3202.5). Preponderance of the evidence means "evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and the greater probability of truth." Stated another way, preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence on one side outweighs the evidence on the other side. It simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. The liberal construction required by Labor Code, Section 3202 does not relieve a party from meeting its evidentiary burden of proof.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Ind. Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341
Presumption of employment under Labor Code section 2750.5 and burden to rebut under Borello factors.
Defendant failed to present evidence to rebut presumption of employment; applicant's credible testimony supported employment finding.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony about supervision, control, and payment method.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.