What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; Findings of Fact of September 9, 2021, upheld.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on September 9, 2021, which found applicant was an employee of defendant on the date of injury; WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the petition; WCAB panel adopted the Report and denied reconsideration.
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.
The WCJ found applicant rendered service to defendant based on credible testimony, including a witness still employed by defendant, and found defendant's contradictory witness testimony not credible, thus upholding the presumption of employment and contract of hire.
From the decision · page 1In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ states: All defense witnesses testified that they did not know the applicant and that he was not ever hired to work for the employer, however, their testimony was contradictory on several issues detailed, below.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This credible testimony established applicant rendered service, triggering the employment presumption.
Defendant's witnesses gave contradictory and confusing testimony on key facts such as hiring authority and project locations.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This undermined defendant's burden to rebut the employment presumption, supporting applicant's claim.
From the decision · page 1In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ states: All defense witnesses testified that they did not know the applicant and that he was not ever hired to work for the employer, however, their testimony was contradictory on several issues detailed, below.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code Section 3351; Parsons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 629; California Compensation Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Hernandez) (1998) 63 Cal.Comp.Cases 844; Lara v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 182 Cal.4th 393
Burden of proof shifts to defendant to rebut employment presumption after applicant shows he rendered service.
Applicant proved he rendered service; defendant failed to prove absence of contract of hire; thus presumption of employment upheld.
From the decision · page 3In the present case, defendant contends that applicant is not entitled to the legal presumption of employment because he failed to establish that he rendered service on its behalf while under a contract for hire. Contrary to defendant's legal position, however, applicant bears the burden of proving that he rendered service for defendant, whereupon the burden shifts to defendant to rebut the employment presumption by proving that applicant did not work "under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship." (See § 3351; Parsons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 629, 638 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1304].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Contradictory and confusing testimony of defendant's witnesses undermined their credibility and supported applicant's claim.
From the decision · page 1In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ states: All defense witnesses testified that they did not know the applicant and that he was not ever hired to work for the employer, however, their testimony was contradictory on several issues detailed, below.
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.