ADJ14875195 · October 3, 2022

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

Applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony and medical reports established injury to multiple body parts arising out of employment on 06-08-2021.

From the decision · page 8This finding is based upon the applicant's very credible and unrebutted testimony and the medical reporting of Dr. Amin Nia dated 07-13-2021 and PR-2 reports EAMS-dated 03-04-2022 (as set out in Applicant's Exhibits 8 and 7), the records of Southern California Hospital, EAMS-

Medical reports established the applicant's need for further medical treatment related to the injury.

From the decision · page 9This finding is based upon the medical reporting of Dr. Nia (as set out in Applicant's Exhibits 7 and 8) and Dr. Jeffrey Berman, dated 03-29-2022 (as set out in Court Exhibit X1).

Applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony and medical reports established entitlement to temporary disability benefits from 06-09-2021 to 03-29-2022.

From the decision · page 9Applicant claims temporary disability for the period beginning 06-09-2021 to and including the present and continuing. This finding is based upon applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony and the medical reporting of applicant's Primary Treating Physician (PTP) Dr. Amin Nia, dated 07-13-2021 (Applicant's Exhibit 8) and the PR-2 reports of Dr. Nia from 08- 24-2021 through 02-07-2022 (as set out in Applicant's Exhibit 7), and the medical reporting of AME Dr. Jeffrey Berman, especially on page 27 of his report (as set out in Court Exhibit X1).

Applicant made a prima facie case of dual employment with Studio AT and Alger-Triton.

Favours Applicant prevailed

No rebuttal evidence was presented by defendants to challenge applicant's testimony.

From the decision · page 2that applicant made a prima facie case that he was employed by both Studio AT and Alger- Tritonhad and that defendant presented no rebuttal evidence.

Applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony established employment at both companies.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Defendants failed to cross-examine or present witnesses to rebut applicant's testimony.

From the decision · page 8There is an issue here where applicant has alleged that the two employers, Alger-Triton (which was uninsured for workers' compensation purposes on 06-08-2021) and Studio AT (which had insurance with The Hartford) are really one-in-the-same employer. The issue here is whether the applicant is also an employee of Studio AT. The applicant has claimed he indeed was employed at Studio AT on the date of injury. Applicant has even gone so far as to state that Studio AT and Alger-Triton are one-in-the-same company. Rather amazingly, the highly competent and aggressive defense attorneys who represented Alger-Triton and Studio AT/Hartford, not only failed to bring in witnesses to challenge the applicant's assertion that Alger-Triton and Studio AT are one-in-the-same company, neither defense attorney asked a single cross-examination question of the applicant when cross-examination of the applicant was offered at trial.

Medical reporting supporting injury and temporary disability findings.

From the decision · page 8This finding is based upon the applicant's very credible and unrebutted testimony and the medical reporting of Dr. Amin Nia dated 07-13-2021 and PR-2 reports EAMS-dated 03-04-2022 (as set out in Applicant's Exhibits 8 and 7), the records of Southern California Hospital, EAMS-

AME report supporting injury and temporary disability findings.

From the decision · page 9dated 03-04-2022 (as set out Applicant's Exhibit 9), and the AME report of orthopedist Dr. Jeffrey Berman dated 03-29-2022, especially pages 25 through 27 (as set out in Court Exhibit X1).

Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 168

Dual employment characteristics and determination as a question of fact

The WCJ applied the legal standard to find dual employment based on applicant's testimony and lack of rebuttal evidence.

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

Applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony

From the decision · page 8At trial on 06-09-2022 applicant stated that he worked at Studio AT, also called Alger- Triton at 5600 Jefferson Boulevard in Los Angeles. Please see Summary of Evidence (SOE) 06- 09-21 page 2 lines 19-20. This testimony was never rebutted through other testimony or documents. Applicant stated his job duties did not change and his supervisor and his manager did not change between his first and final day of work. He sometimes received paychecks from Studio AT and sometimes from Alger-Triton. The same person owns both companies.

No rebuttal evidence or cross-examination by defendants

From the decision · page 8There is an issue here where applicant has alleged that the two employers, Alger-Triton (which was uninsured for workers' compensation purposes on 06-08-2021) and Studio AT (which had insurance with The Hartford) are really one-in-the-same employer. The issue here is whether the applicant is also an employee of Studio AT. The applicant has claimed he indeed was employed at Studio AT on the date of injury. Applicant has even gone so far as to state that Studio AT and Alger-Triton are one-in-the-same company. Rather amazingly, the highly competent and aggressive defense attorneys who represented Alger-Triton and Studio AT/Hartford, not only failed to bring in witnesses to challenge the applicant's assertion that Alger-Triton and Studio AT are one-in-the-same company, neither defense attorney asked a single cross-examination question of the applicant when cross-examination of the applicant was offered at trial.