Francisco Cortez, vs. F. C. Gonzales Construction; State Farm Fire & Casualty,

This case involves a dispute between Francisco Cortez, the applicant, and F. C. Gonzales Construction and State Farm Fire & Casualty, the defendants, over workers' compensation coverage. The workers' compensation arbitrator found that Cortez was not a residence employee and that his employment was not incidental to the ownership, maintenance, or use of a residence. The defendants sought reconsideration of this decision, claiming that the arbitrator erred in their findings. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, finding that there was substantial evidence to support the arbitrator's decision and that the defendants were not entitled to estoppel.

F. C. GONZALES CONSTRUCTION; STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY, FRANCISCO CORTEZ, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAFRANCISCO CORTEZ, Applicant,vs.F. C. GONZALES CONSTRUCTION;STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ1108617 (ANA 0397994)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendants, Faustino Gonzales and Angela Gonzales, seek reconsideration of the Finding of Fact and Order issued April 23, 2009, wherein the workers’ compensation arbitrator (WCA) found that applicant was not a residence employee and that applicant’s employment was not incidental to the ownership, maintenance or use of a residence. Defendants’ claim of workers’ compensation coverage by estoppel was denied.            Defendants contends that the WCA erred: (1) by failing to find that applicant was a residence employee; (2) by failing to find that applicant’s employment was incidental to the ownership, maintenance or use of the Gonzales’ residence; and (3) that the carrier, State Farm General Insurance Company (State Farm), is estopped to deny coverage. State Farm filed an Answer.            We have considered the issues set forth in defendants’ petition and the WCA’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) with respect thereto. Based upon the Report, which we adopt and incorporate by reference, and for the reasons set forth herein, we will deny defendants’ petition.            In the underlying matter, defendants, as owner-builders, were building a new home at June Lake, California. At the time of applicant’s alleged injury, the framing was not finished, there was no roof and the home was not fit for habitation. ,             Defendants hired applicant to do the framing at their June Lake construction site and applicant kept a separate time card for that work.            Defendants’ construction business has a workers’ compensation policy. Defendant also has a homeowner’s policy on the property from which the constr

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.