CompFox AI Summary
The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision finding the applicant excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3352(h). The applicant was hired by Mr. Lai as a homeowner for less than 52 hours in the 90 days prior to his injury, and his duties were incidental to the maintenance of a residential dwelling, not Mr. Lai's business. The majority found that applicant's work at Mr. Lai's personal residence did not fall within the course of Mr. Lai's alleged business of managing rental properties. The dissenting opinion argued that Mr. Lai's management of multiple rental properties and arrangement of work for the applicant constituted a business, making the applicant an employee rather than an excluded casual residential employee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision finding the applicant excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3352(h). The applicant was hired by Mr. Lai as a homeowner for less than 52 hours in the 90 days prior to his injury, and his duties were incidental to the maintenance of a residential dwelling, not Mr. Lai's business. The majority found that applicant's work at Mr. Lai's personal residence did not fall within the course of Mr. Lai's alleged business of managing rental properties. The dissenting opinion argued that Mr. Lai's management of multiple rental properties and arrangement of work for the applicant constituted a business, making the applicant an employee rather than an excluded casual residential employee.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.