Heiman

Heiman v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

Good Law
149 Cal. App. 4th 724·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 525·2007 Daily Journal DAR 4856·57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 56·1 Cal. WCC 261
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 13, 2007B187206California8,222 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

Petitioner, a professional property manager, hired an unlicensed and uninsured contractor to install rain gutters on a condominium building, and an employee of the contractor was seriously injured on the first day of the job. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concluded that petitioner was the employer liable for workers’ compensation. Petitioner contends that the WCAB erred because petitioner was instructed to hire the unlicensed contractor as the agent of the condominium homeowners association or the condominium owners, which were found not liable for workers’ compensation under the Labor Code.

We conclude that petitioner and the unlicensed contractor were dual employers that are jointly and severally liable for workers’ compensation. The unlicensed contractor employed the injured employee, and petitioner hired the unlicensed contractor as a professional property manager and the agent of the homeowners association. The homeowners association was not an owner or exempt employer under the Labor Code. Even if petitioner were the agent of the condominium owners, an agent may be liable for performing an act authorized by the principal whose rights are not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.