What the panel ordered
The August 17, 2021 Findings of Fact and Order is affirmed; Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Defendants filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration of the August 17, 2021 Findings of Fact and Order, which was affirmed after further review.
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 6Based on the entire record, Applicant and Juan Vega were employees of Roy A. Barile, Jonette L. Barile and John J. Barile on 7/11/2020. Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of employment.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This triggered a conclusive presumption of employment under Labor Code § 2750.5 and Business and Professions Code § 7048.
Testimony of all witnesses was consistent and credible regarding the employment relationship and work performed.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility of testimony supported finding of employment status.
From the decision · page 5The testimony of all three witnesses was consistent. The Applicant testified at trial that he arrived at the property in San Pedro where he was accompanied by Juan Vega and two other men that he met for the first time that day. The four men built the scaffolds, placed the ladder on top of the scaffold and Applicant fell from the scaffold injuring himself. The Applicant understood that his work assignment that day was to put in the new wood. (See Minutes of hearing and Summary of Evidence dated 7/1/2021, page 4, lines 17 to 25 and page 5, lines 1 to 3)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code § 2750.5; Bus. & Prof. Code § 7048; State Compensation Ins. Fund v. WCAB (Meier) (1985) 40 Cal.3d 5
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
From the decision · page 5The testimony of all three witnesses was consistent. The Applicant testified at trial that he arrived at the property in San Pedro where he was accompanied by Juan Vega and two other men that he met for the first time that day. The four men built the scaffolds, placed the ladder on top of the scaffold and Applicant fell from the scaffold injuring himself. The Applicant understood that his work assignment that day was to put in the new wood. (See Minutes of hearing and Summary of Evidence dated 7/1/2021, page 4, lines 17 to 25 and page 5, lines 1 to 3)
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.