What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration, affirmed the Findings of Fact and Award except amended Finding 1 to clarify the injury arose out of and in the course of employment under Labor Code section 3600, and deferred the issue of whether Gava Talent Solutions LLC was the employer at the time of injury.
Defendant employer Avellino Labs USA and its insurer Hartford filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the WCJ on December 22, 2025, challenging the employment status determination; the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the petition, but the Appeals Board granted the petition in part and amended the Findings of Fact and Award.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ found applicant was employed by Avellino based on credible testimony and evidence, and defendants failed to rebut the presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357. The Appeals Board affirmed this finding and amended the F&A to clarify the injury arose out of and in the course of employment under Labor Code section 3600.
From the decision · page 8Applicant's unrebutted credible testimony established that she worked for Avellino Labs USA. Avellino Labs USA was her employer at the time of injury. Defendants failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3357 presumption of employment. Defendants presented no evidence or witnesses on the issue. Whether or not applicant had a general and special employer at the time of injury is deferred. Applicant acknowledged being paid by Gava Talent Solutions.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant testified she worked for Avellino Labs USA as the right-hand executive assistant to the CEO, using Avellino's equipment and working under its direction.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This credible testimony supported the finding that applicant was employed by Avellino at the time of injury.
Applicant's W-4 form listed Avellino Labs USA as her employer.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This documentary evidence supported the finding of employment by Avellino.
Defendants presented no evidence or witnesses to rebut the presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The lack of rebuttal evidence supported the finding that applicant was employed by Avellino.
From the decision · page 8Applicant's unrebutted credible testimony established that she worked for Avellino Labs USA. Avellino Labs USA was her employer at the time of injury. Defendants failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3357 presumption of employment. Defendants presented no evidence or witnesses on the issue. Whether or not applicant had a general and special employer at the time of injury is deferred. Applicant acknowledged being paid by Gava Talent Solutions.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 3351, 3353, 3357
Presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357, burden on hirer to prove independent contractor status under Labor Code section 3353, and definition of employee under Labor Code section 3351.
The WCJ found applicant was an employee of Avellino based on credible testimony and failure of defendants to rebut the presumption of employment.
From the decision · page 7An "employee" is defined as "every person in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed." (Lab. Code, § 3351.) Further, any person rendering service for another, other than as an independent contractor or other excluded classification, is presumed to be an employee. (Lab. Code, § 3357.) Once the person rendering service establishes a prima facie case of "employee" status, the burden shifts to the hirer to affirmatively prove that the worker is an independent contractor. (Cristler v. Express Messenger Sys., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 84 [74 Cal.Comp.Cases 167]; Narayan v. EGL, Inc. (2010) 616 F.3d 895, 900 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 724].) An "independent contractor" is defined as "any person who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished." (Lab. Code, § 3353.) Consequently, unless the hirer can demonstrate that the worker meets specific criteria to be
Labor Code section 3600
Definition of injury arising out of and in the course of employment under Labor Code section 3600.
The Appeals Board amended the F&A to clarify the injury arose out of and in the course of employment as defined by Labor Code section 3600.
From the decision · page 10Finally, we amend Finding 1 of the F&A to accurately reflect that applicant sustained injury "arising out of and occurring in the course of employment" as set forth under Labor Code section 3600. The phrase "within the course and scope of employment" is not the term of art as defined by Labor Code section 3600 and may create confusion.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony that she worked for Avellino Labs USA and was the right-hand executive assistant to the CEO, using Avellino's equipment and working under its direction.
Defendants presented no evidence or witnesses to rebut the presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357.
From the decision · page 8Applicant's unrebutted credible testimony established that she worked for Avellino Labs USA. Avellino Labs USA was her employer at the time of injury. Defendants failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3357 presumption of employment. Defendants presented no evidence or witnesses on the issue. Whether or not applicant had a general and special employer at the time of injury is deferred. Applicant acknowledged being paid by Gava Talent Solutions.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.