What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports finding of employment relationship and coverage responsibility
From the decision · page 8It is undisputed that applicant was hired by PARESH PATEL/CHULA VISTA
EXTENDED STAY who retained supervision and control over the applicant. (See MOH/SOE
4/5/2022 5:25-6:4; 8:2-7; See also Applicant Exhibit 2 (records of Chula Vista Extended Stay
including pay check, time card, Application, and Oasis Paperwork). PARESH PATEL
individually and as CHULA VISTA EXTENDED STAY did not maintain a separate policy of
workers' compensation insurance (See App. Ex. 2), rather they contracted with a PEO, OASIS
OUTSOURCING INC. to provide the payroll, W-2 reporting and workers' compensation
coverage (See Joint Defendant's B and MOH/SOE 4/5/2022 Patel Testimony 5:2-9). OASIS
OUTSOURCING, INC. has refused to provide workers' compensation coverage or defense for
CHULA VISTA EXTENDED STAY on the basis that the applicant was never "on boarded".
Oasis Outsourcing refused coverage claiming applicant was never onboarded
Favours Defendant prevailed
Central dispute about coverage responsibility
From the decision · page 8It is undisputed that applicant was hired by PARESH PATEL/CHULA VISTA
EXTENDED STAY who retained supervision and control over the applicant. (See MOH/SOE
4/5/2022 5:25-6:4; 8:2-7; See also Applicant Exhibit 2 (records of Chula Vista Extended Stay
including pay check, time card, Application, and Oasis Paperwork). PARESH PATEL
individually and as CHULA VISTA EXTENDED STAY did not maintain a separate policy of
workers' compensation insurance (See App. Ex. 2), rather they contracted with a PEO, OASIS
OUTSOURCING INC. to provide the payroll, W-2 reporting and workers' compensation
coverage (See Joint Defendant's B and MOH/SOE 4/5/2022 Patel Testimony 5:2-9). OASIS
OUTSOURCING, INC. has refused to provide workers' compensation coverage or defense for
CHULA VISTA EXTENDED STAY on the basis that the applicant was never "on boarded".
WCJ found failure to onboard was an error and ordered completion to extend coverage
Favours Applicant prevailed
Basis for WCJ's order and subsequent reconsideration
From the decision · page 8There is not a fundamental dispute about the facts. The WCJ evaluated the evidence,
documentary and testamentary and found that the failure to "onboard" the applicant by OASIS
was an error and that the onboarding process should be completed so to as extend insurance
coverage to the applicant. The defendants evaluated the same facts and came to the conclusion that
OASIS was not responsible for onboarding the applicant, thus leaving the provision of workers'
compensation benefits to the UNINSURED BENEFITS TRUST FUND and PATEL. This is a
catastrophic injury which would place an under burden upon the State of California and PATEL,
when PATEL utilized a PEO, OASIS to ensure compliance with wage and hours laws, workers'
compensation and federal and state payroll taxes and documents. The basic facts are these:
WCAB struck the order requiring Oasis to complete onboarding as unauthorized by Labor Code
Favours Defendant prevailed
Determined limits of WCJ's authority and final disposition
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of
the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto.
Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the Report, which we adopt and
incorporate, except as noted below, and for the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration,
rescind the WCJ's decision, substitute it with new Findings of Fact, that affirm the WCJ's decision
as to special and general employment and incorporate the stipulated facts included by the WCJ in
the June 8, 2022 decision. However, we strike the Order that Oasis Outsourcing complete the
onboarding process for applicant for the reasons stated below.