Opinion ID: 1709176
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bole Oil Company

Text: In deciding Bole's status under the statutory employer provision, we apply the same factors that were used in deciding Gulf's status. Our analysis indicates that:

3. Bole testified that his company had no contract with Lang. Records & Briefs of Supreme Court No 3, April, 1978, Appendix, p 97a. 4. Plaintiff was employed by Lang. The WCAB made a special finding of this at this Court's request. 5. It is uncontested that plaintiff was injured during a test drive of a car he repaired, while working under Lang. 6. The last factor is whether the repair work done by plaintiff was work undertaken by Bole. Plaintiff does not adduce any evidence that there was an undertaking by Bole that repair work be executed by or under Lang, nor do the WCAB finding or our own research of the record indicate that there is any such evidence. On the basis of our analysis of the above factors, we conclude that the plaintiff did not prove that Bole was his statutory employer.