What the panel ordered
Findings of Fact issued by the WCJ on May 19, 2022, affirmed after reconsideration.
Petition for Reconsideration granted and decision after reconsideration issued affirming the WCJ's Findings of Fact.
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.
From the decision · page 1Here, the WCJ found that applicant had dual employment with DTL Logistics, Inc. Texas and DTL Logistics, Inc., California. We agree. As set forth in Kowalski:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's credible testimony that he believed he was employed by DTL Logistics, Inc. California and was unaware of the Texas entity.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the finding of dual employment as the applicant was working for the benefit of both entities.
From the decision · page 41. The applicant was employed by DTL Logistics, Inc. in Texas ("DTLTX"), and allegedly employed with DTL Logistics, Inc. in California ("DTLCA"). 2. Based upon the applicant's credible testimony, he believed he was employed by DTLCA. 3. The applicant's credible testimony was that he did not know there was a DTLTX. 4. The applicant was believed when he stated he did not write the DTL TX address on his
Favours Applicant prevailed
Indicated control and manipulation of both entities, supporting dual employment.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 168
Dual employment recognized where an employee is under control of two employers and services benefit both.
Applied to determine dual employment based on control and benefit to both entities.
From the decision · page 1Here, the WCJ found that applicant had dual employment with DTL Logistics, Inc. Texas and DTL Logistics, Inc., California. We agree. As set forth in Kowalski:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony and defendant's witness lack of credibility
From the decision · page 2In sum, the determination of whether a dual employment relationship exists is a question of fact. (See Kowalski, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 176.) 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.) Here, the WCJ determined that applicant's testimony was credible, and that defendant's witness's testimony was not. As explained by the WCJ, the evidence produced at trial shows that defendants DTL Logistics, Inc. Texas and DTL Logistics, Inc., California were dual employers of applicant, and we will not disturb her decision.
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.