CompFox AI Summary
This case involves an applicant injured while employed by both Major Transportation Services and Peoplease, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO). Peoplease sought reconsideration of a finding that they jointly employed the applicant on the date of injury, arguing payroll was not processed through them. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that a co-employment relationship existed. The WCJ found that despite Peoplease's argument about payroll timing, evidence showed Peoplease benefitted from the applicant's work and their actions were inconsistent with strict contract adherence, akin to precedent in Gulam v. Patel. Ultimately, Peoplease's arguments regarding payroll timing were deemed coverage issues subject to arbitration and not grounds to deny the finding of co-employment.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involves an applicant injured while employed by both Major Transportation Services and Peoplease, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO). Peoplease sought reconsideration of a finding that they jointly employed the applicant on the date of injury, arguing payroll was not processed through them. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that a co-employment relationship existed. The WCJ found that despite Peoplease's argument about payroll timing, evidence showed Peoplease benefitted from the applicant's work and their actions were inconsistent with strict contract adherence, akin to precedent in Gulam v. Patel. Ultimately, Peoplease's arguments regarding payroll timing were deemed coverage issues subject to arbitration and not grounds to deny the finding of co-employment.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.