What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; December 15, 2025 Amended Findings of Fact rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) challenging the WCJ's December 15, 2025 Amended Findings of Fact regarding employment status of applicant and joint employment liability.
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The WCJ's Findings of Fact were rescinded due to inadequate notice to defendant Domingo the applicant and the need for further proceedings to properly determine employment status and joint employment liability under applicable California workers' compensation law and tests.
From the decision · page 5Here, it is unclear whether defendant D. the applicant was provided with adequate notice of trial or of subsequent Findings of Fact. D. the applicant was named as an employer in applicant's original Application for Adjudication dated December 12, 2019. Minutes of Hearing from April 2, 2025 state, "uninsured employer not served w/second amended application for adjudication dated 11/18/2020. AA needs to re-serve." The MOH also reflect that trial was set for August 27, 2025. However, the record contains no proof of service demonstrating that D. the applicant was served with the second amended Application, as directed by the WCJ. In addition, the WCJ did not create a record demonstrating that D. the applicant was served with notice of the hearing.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant Domingo the applicant was not served with the second amended Application for Adjudication or notice of hearing, depriving him of adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This procedural defect required rescinding the Findings of Fact and returning the matter for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 5Here, it is unclear whether defendant D. the applicant was provided with adequate notice of trial or of subsequent Findings of Fact. D. the applicant was named as an employer in applicant's original Application for Adjudication dated December 12, 2019. Minutes of Hearing from April 2, 2025 state, "uninsured employer not served w/second amended application for adjudication dated 11/18/2020. AA needs to re-serve." The MOH also reflect that trial was set for August 27, 2025. However, the record contains no proof of service demonstrating that D. the applicant was served with the second amended Application, as directed by the WCJ. In addition, the WCJ did not create a record demonstrating that D. the applicant was served with notice of the hearing.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 3Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
Labor Code section 3351
Labor Code section 3351
Defines 'employee' broadly to include every person in service of an employer, lawfully or unlawfully employed.
From the decision · page 6California has a no-fault workers' compensation system. With few exceptions, all California employers are liable for the compensation provided by the system to employees injured or disabled in the course of and arising out of their employment, "irrespective of the fault of either party." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) The protective goal of California's no-fault workers' compensation legislation is manifested "by defining `employment' broadly in terms of `service to an employer' and by including a general presumption that any person `in service to another' is a covered `employee.'" (Lab. Code, § 3351, 5705(a); S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80].)
Labor Code section 3357
Labor Code section 3357
Presumption that any person rendering service for another is an employee unless proven independent contractor.
From the decision · page 6California has a no-fault workers' compensation system. With few exceptions, all California employers are liable for the compensation provided by the system to employees injured or disabled in the course of and arising out of their employment, "irrespective of the fault of either party." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) The protective goal of California's no-fault workers' compensation legislation is manifested "by defining `employment' broadly in terms of `service to an employer' and by including a general presumption that any person `in service to another' is a covered `employee.'" (Lab. Code, § 3351, 5705(a); S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80].)
Labor Code section 2750.5
Labor Code section 2750.5
Rebuttable presumption that a worker performing services requiring a license is an employee rather than an independent contractor.
From the decision · page 8149 Cal.App.4th 1116 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 438].) With respect to contractors on construction projects, Labor Code section 2750.5 applies in workers' compensation cases, and Labor Code section 3351, subdivision (d) is read together with section 2750.5. (Cedillo v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 227, 232-233 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 140]; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Meier) (1985) 40 Cal.3d 5 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 562].) "There is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that a worker performing services for which a license is required... or who is performing such services for a person who is required to obtain such a license is an employee rather than an independent contractor..." (Lab. Code, § 2750.5; see also, Cedillo, supra.)
Borello v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341
Borello v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341
Employment relationship determined by right to control manner and means of work and other factors.
From the decision · page 6California has a no-fault workers' compensation system. With few exceptions, all California employers are liable for the compensation provided by the system to employees injured or disabled in the course of and arising out of their employment, "irrespective of the fault of either party." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) The protective goal of California's no-fault workers' compensation legislation is manifested "by defining `employment' broadly in terms of `service to an employer' and by including a general presumption that any person `in service to another' is a covered `employee.'" (Lab. Code, § 3351, 5705(a); S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80].)
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903
ABC test for independent contractor status requiring hiring entity to prove all three factors.
From the decision · page 7Then, in 2018, the court adopted the ABC test as detailed in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 [83 Cal. Comp. Cases 817].1 The court made clear that the burden is on the hiring entity to establish that the worker is an independent contractor, and to meet this burden, the hiring entity must establish that each of the three factors of the ABC test are satisfied, specifically: "(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed. [citation]." (Id. at pp. 956-957, italics in original.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant Domingo the applicant was not provided with adequate notice of trial or subsequent Findings of Fact, depriving him of the opportunity to be heard.
From the decision · page 5Here, it is unclear whether defendant D. the applicant was provided with adequate notice of trial or of subsequent Findings of Fact. D. the applicant was named as an employer in applicant's original Application for Adjudication dated December 12, 2019. Minutes of Hearing from April 2, 2025 state, "uninsured employer not served w/second amended application for adjudication dated 11/18/2020. AA needs to re-serve." The MOH also reflect that trial was set for August 27, 2025. However, the record contains no proof of service demonstrating that D. the applicant was served with the second amended Application, as directed by the WCJ. In addition, the WCJ did not create a record demonstrating that D. the applicant was served with notice of the hearing.
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.