What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.
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 preliminarily found that Solis may have been a joint employer because Soto was unlicensed and uninsured, making Solis the ultimate hirer responsible for workers' compensation coverage. The Board granted reconsideration to further review this issue.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Because Soto was unlicensed and uninsured, he was considered an employee, not an independent contractor, affecting employer liability.
From the decision · page 3Here, applicant is an employee. Soto was not only unlicensed, but also uninsured for workers' compensation, and so, he too was an employee. Once Solis hired Soto, because Soto was an employee, Solis was then required to carry workers' compensation coverage. Thus, while Soto was an employer of applicant, as the ultimate hirer, our preliminary review suggests that Solis became Soto's employer and an employer of applicant.