CompFox AI Summary
In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued that the applicant, a dog groomer, was an independent contractor, not an employee. However, the administrative law judge found sufficient evidence to establish an employment relationship, based on factors including the defendant's control over the work schedule, provision of essential tools and supplies, collection of fees, and handling of customer complaints. The Board affirmed the judge's findings, concluding that the applicant was an employee at the time of injury.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued that the applicant, a dog groomer, was an independent contractor, not an employee. However, the administrative law judge found sufficient evidence to establish an employment relationship, based on factors including the defendant's control over the work schedule, provision of essential tools and supplies, collection of fees, and handling of customer complaints. The Board affirmed the judge's findings, concluding that the applicant was an employee at the time of injury.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.