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Petitions for reconsideration granted, December 30, 2025 Findings of Fact rescinded and substituted
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The Appeals Board rescinded the finding of violation due to lack of evidence applicant testified to notice provision and deferred the issue.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.
The Appeals Board found that applicant was employed by both Long Beach and BBSI based on evidence of mutual agreement, control, and documents on BBSI letterhead signed by applicant.
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.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant signed documents on BBSI letterhead and had understanding BBSI was employer
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported finding of joint employment with BBSI
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.
WCJ found applicant employed by both Long Beach and BBSI after weighing testimony and documents
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility determinations supported joint employment finding
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.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's credibility determinations given great weight based on witness demeanor
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.