What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Studio AT/The Hartford was denied by the WCAB panel.
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.
Applicant made a prima facie case of dual employment with no rebuttal evidence from defendants, and the WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight.
From the decision · page 1An employee may have more than one employer. The characteristics of such dual employment are: 1) that the employee is sent by one employer (the general employer) to perform labor for another employer (the special employer); 2) rendition of the work yields a benefit to each employer; and 3) each employer has some direction and control over the details of the work. (See Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 168 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 134]; Meloy v. Texas Co. (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 691 [18 Cal.Comp.Cases 313]; Ridgeway v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 841 [20 Cal.Comp.Cases 32]; Doty v. Lacy (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 73 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 316]; Caso v. Nimrod Prods. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 881.) The determination of whether a dual employment relationship exists is a question of fact. (Kowalski, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 176.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report and the Opinion on Decision, we agree