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 defendant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant was an independent contractor, and that applicant was an employee under the Borello test, including control and secondary factors.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on January 4, 2022, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant was an employee of Michael Paiva on January 21, 2019.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant was present on the property 95% of the time applicant worked and oversaw the work.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Shows defendant retained overall control over the details of the work, supporting employee status.
From the decision · page 5Here, both applicant and defendant testified that defendant had occasion to instruct applicant as to how to perform his work and defendant testified that he was present on the property ninety-five percent of the time applicant was performing work there, a period of at least two months and two weeks. (Report, p. 3; Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, November 9, 2021, p. 8:8-9.) It follows that defendant oversaw applicant's work; and, therefore, we conclude that he retained overall control over the details of that work.