ADJ8887862 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Findings of Fact substituted to find applicant employed by both Long Beach Towing and Barrett Business Services, Inc.; other issues deferred

Petitions for reconsideration granted, December 30, 2025 Findings of Fact rescinded and substituted

Read the official decision →

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.

Other disputed issueDeferred

The Appeals Board rescinded the finding of violation due to lack of evidence applicant testified to notice provision and deferred the issue.

From the decision · page 12In the F&O, the WCJ found that there were violations of sections 3550 and 3551 based on applicant's testimony that there were no notices posted at Long Beach. However, on our review of the record, we did not see that applicant testified to the provision of notices. We also note that Exhibit M is a signed acknowledgement by the applicant of the Medical Provider Network. Further, in Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1423 (Appeals Board en banc), an employer's failure to provide required notice to an employee of rights under the MPN resulted in a neglect or refusal to provide reasonable medical treatment that rendered the employer liable for the reasonable medical treatment self-procured by the employee.

AOE/COE

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 3351; Riley case

Presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3351 and control test from Riley case

The Appeals Board applied the presumption and control test to find BBSI was a joint employer with Long Beach.

From the decision · page 10Here, BBSI argues that applicant was not properly added to the ledger of employees and was never paid by BBSI and is therefore not an employee of BBSI. Yet, BBSI provides no evidence of an exclusion to rebut the presumption of employment. The test outlined in Riley, supra supports the finding that there is general employment on the part of BBSI. First, there is clearly a mutual agreement that BBSI was to be a co-employer with Long Beach for their employees and that BBSI retained the right to control, to some degree, the employees of Long Beach. Second, several of the documents authenticated and signed by the applicant were on BBSI letterhead, including the payroll election form, and "Employee Acknowledgement of Medical Provider Network." Thus, applicant had an understanding that BBSI was also his employer. These documents were dated December 17, 2012, prior to the date of injury.

Labor Code sections 3550 and 3551; Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1423

The Appeals Board rescinded the finding of violation due to lack of evidence of notice provision and deferred the issue.

From the decision · page 12In the F&O, the WCJ found that there were violations of sections 3550 and 3551 based on applicant's testimony that there were no notices posted at Long Beach. However, on our review of the record, we did not see that applicant testified to the provision of notices. We also note that Exhibit M is a signed acknowledgement by the applicant of the Medical Provider Network. Further, in Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1423 (Appeals Board en banc), an employer's failure to provide required notice to an employee of rights under the MPN resulted in a neglect or refusal to provide reasonable medical treatment that rendered the employer liable for the reasonable medical treatment self-procured by the employee.

ADJ8887862 · April 28, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page