What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted in part; the January 21, 2021 Finding of Fact is amended to find that applicant is an employee of the County of Riverside.
Petition for Reconsideration of the January 21, 2021 Finding of Fact filed by applicant, challenging the finding that he was not an employee of defendant County of Riverside.
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 Board found that the applicant's work was voluntary and that the evidence did not rebut the presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357, amending the prior finding that he was not an employee.
From the decision · page 3We first address defendant's contention that the petition should be summarily denied because applicant failed to set forth one or more of the five grounds for reconsideration. Defendant cites to Alaniz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (2011) 76 Cal.Comp.Cases 784 [2011 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 117] to support its contention that the petition should be summarily denied. Although the WCJ in Alaniz raised the issue that the applicant there failed to state the grounds for reconsideration, the WCJ, nevertheless, reached the merits of the matter. (Ibid.) We, too, reach the merits here in favor of the strong public policy to hear appeals on the merits in light that defendant was not prejudiced by this failure and was able to address applicant's petition. (Palacios v. Ortiz (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 567, 588-589 [2005 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 108].)