Gerardo Ramirez vs. William Alonso, Individually And Doing Business As Quality Building Services; Uninsured Employers Fund

William Alonso, individually and doing business as Quality Building Services, was found to be liable for workers' compensation benefits to Gerardo Ramirez after a long standing working relationship between the two was established. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the April 5, 2011 Findings and Award of the workers' compensation administrative law judge and rescinded the finding and award due to its confusing references to Labor Code sections 3351 and 3352. The Appeals Board then entered a new finding that applicant was an employee of William Alonso doing business as Quality Building Services on February 3, 2003, based on the evidence in the record that showed applicant was an employee of Mr. Alonso's business for several years before February 3, 2003, and that the fact that applicant was performing work on

William Alonso, individually and doing business as Quality Building Services; Uninsured Employers Fund Gerardo Ramirez WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGERARDO RAMIREZ, Applicant,vs.WILLIAM ALONSO, individually and doing business as QUALITY BUILDING SERVICES; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2359413 (VNO 0470470) OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER AND DECISION AFTER            Defendant William Alonso seeks reconsideration of the April 5, 2011 Findings and Award of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) who found in full as follows: “In ADJ2359413, it is found that applicant was an employee on February 3, 2003 pursuant to the provisions of Labor Code Section 3352(h) to establish an employment relationship [sic]; and the provisions of Labor Code Section 3351(d) are not applicable to defendant because defendant was running a business from his home.”            Applicant claims he incurred industrial injury to his right major extremity while employed by Mr. Alonso’s business, Quality Building Services, on February 3, 2003.            Mr. Alonso contends that the evidence does not support the WCJ’s finding that applicant was an “employee” entitled to workers’ compensation benefits on the date of injury.            An answer was received and the WCJ provided a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report).            Reconsideration is granted. As our Decision After Reconsideration we rescind the WCJ’s finding and award because of its confusing references to Labor Code sections 3351 and 3352, and , enter a new finding that applicant was an employee of William Alonso doing business as Quality Building Services on February 3, 2003. The record shows that applicant was an employee of Mr. Alonso’s business for several years before February 3, 2003, and based upon the evidence in this record, the fact that applicant was performing work on Mr. Alonso’s house on the date

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.