ADJ285288 · January 3, 2025

The evidence showed Koll did not exercise control over applicant's work, applicant was paid and supervised by GTG, Inc., and Koll's role was limited to scheduling and oversight without direct control, thus no dual or special employment existed.

From the decision · page 11JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, age 49, while employed on 2/29/2000, and during the period 4/15/1995 to 2/29/2000, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment as a soil technician in California with his general employer being GTG, Inc. dba Leighton & Associates, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was American Motorists Insurance, now identified as California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility, Tristar Risk Management, for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company in liquidation. 2. The applicant did not have dual or special employment with Koll Construction Company on February 29, 2000 nor during the period October 1999 to February 29, 2000.

Applicant was paid by GTG, Inc. and supervised by Leighton & Associates, not Koll Construction.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Shows Koll did not exercise control or direction over applicant's work, negating dual employment.

From the decision · page 7GTG, Inc. dba Leighton and Associates, not Koll Construction, paid the applicant. Leighton & Associates provided applicant's tools. All vacation requests were made to Leighton & Associates.

Applicant testified Koll only coordinated schedules and managed workflow but did not direct or control his work.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Lack of control by Koll is key to rejecting special employment status.

From the decision · page 8The Applicant's testimony clearly establishes that Koll exerted no control and did not direct Applicant's work at the job site. As the general contractor, employees from Koll merely coordinated schedules and managed workflow among multitudes of subcontractors. Applicant's job entailed testing soil samples and providing reports. This was the extent of their contact: providing soil reports on Leighton letterhead and coordinating schedules. This level of interaction does not rise to the level of control and direction that creates a dual employment relationship.

Marsh v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.3d 486

An employee is not a special employee of a general contractor unless the general contractor exercises control over the details of the work at the time of injury.

Applied to determine that Koll did not have special employment relationship with applicant.

From the decision · page 5In Marsh, it was found that an employee of a subcontractor on a construction project who was loaned to the general contractor on the project for one day did not become a special employee of the general contractor, when the employee remained on the subcontractor's payroll, the general contractor could not discharge the employee, and the employee retained unlimited discretion to perform his tasks as he deemed necessary to achieve the results desired by the general contractor. Therefore, an employee of the general contractor who was injured by the negligence of the borrowed employee was entitled to bring a negligence action against the subcontractor. (Marsh, supra, at pp. 490§ 493.)

Thomas v. Edgington Oil Co., 73 Cal.App.3d 61

The existence of a special employment relationship is generally a question of fact when evidence permits conflicting inferences.

Applied to assess control and employment relationship facts.

From the decision · page 6Further, no special employment has been found when the alleged special employer is not, at the time of the injury or in connection with the specific task to be performed, exercising control over the details of the work, even though, at some other time and in connection with some other task, such control may have been exercised. (Thomas v. Edgington Oil Co. (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 61, 64, 140 Cal. Rptr. 635, 42 Cal.Comp.Cases 760.)

Substantial evidence supports a finding that an employee is not a special employee when the general contractor does not control or direct the employee's work.

Applied to reject dual employment claim based on lack of control by Koll.

From the decision · page 9In Kowalski, supra, the California Supreme Court reversed a trial court judge's decision

Applicant's testimony that Koll Construction did not control or direct his work, and that he was paid and supervised by GTG, Inc.

From the decision · page 8The Applicant's testimony clearly establishes that Koll exerted no control and did not direct Applicant's work at the job site. As the general contractor, employees from Koll merely coordinated schedules and managed workflow among multitudes of subcontractors. Applicant's job entailed testing soil samples and providing reports. This was the extent of their contact: providing soil reports on Leighton letterhead and coordinating schedules. This level of interaction does not rise to the level of control and direction that creates a dual employment relationship.