Integral Repair Services as Employment: Borrson v. Weeks and the Relative Nature Test in Hawaiʻi Workers’ Compensation

1. Introduction

In Borrson v. Weeks (Haw. 2025), the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court confronted an unusual landlord-tenant arrangement in which a tenant performed repair, maintenance, and improvement work for reduced rent and hourly pay. When the tenant, James Borrson, fell from a ladder while installing metal panels on the roof of one of the landlord’s five rental units, he filed a workers’ compensation claim. The landlord, Brenda Weeks, denied any employment relationship and disputed that the injury was work-related. At issue was whether under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 386 the landlord–tenant barter arrangement gave rise to an employer-employee relationship and thus to compensable coverage.

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi granted certiorari to resolve split decisions by the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB) and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) on the proper evidentiary standard and the applicability of the “control” and “relative nature of the work” tests under HRS § 386-73.5 (2015). In a majority opinion by Justice Eddins, the Court held that: (1) LIRAB had applied the higher preponderance-of-the-evidence standard instead of the lower substantial-evidence standard, but that error was harmless because the landlord met the higher test; and (2) under the relative nature of the work test, the tenant’s repair and improvement labor was an integral part of the landlord’s rental business and the tenant had no separate business of his own. As a result, an employer-employee relationship existed and the injury was compensable.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s key holdings can be summarized as follows:

The statutory presumption of compensability (HRS § 386-85) requires only substantial evidence to overcome, not preponderance of the evidence.
Because substantial evidence is a lower threshold than preponderance, the ICA erred in remanding for a re-weighing under the substantial evidence standard.
Under the “relative nature of the work” test (HRS § 386-73.5), repair, maintenance, and improvement services are integral to a home-rental business, and performing those services is likewise integral.
The tenant, while skilled as a carpenter, did not operate an independent repair business at the time of injury; his services were performed exclusively for Weeks’ rental enterprise.
Accordingly, an employer-employee relationship existed and Borrson’s roof-work injury was a covered work injury.
The Court vacated LIRAB’s findings and conclusions denying coverage and the ICA’s partial affirmance, and remanded solely to compute benefits.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Panoke v. Reef Dev. of Hawaii, Inc. (2015): Defined “substantial evidence” in the workers’ compensation context as a “high quantum of evidence” that a reasonable mind might accept to justify a conclusion.
City of Lake Elmo v. Metropolitan Council (Minn. 2004): Held that preponderance of the evidence is a higher standard than substantial evidence.
Locations, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Indus. Rels. (1995): Articulated the two-part “relative nature of the work” test and the “control” test for employment relationships.
Masaki v. General Motors Corp. (1989) and Iddings v. Mee-Lee (1996): Discussed the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and analogized “tipping the scale.”
Akamine v. Hawaiian Packing & Crating Co. (1972) and Evanson v. University of Hawaii (1971): Emphasized the remedial and humanitarian purposes of Hawaiʻi’s workers’ compensation statutes and the need to resolve doubts in favor of claimants.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court‘s analysis proceeded in three major steps:

Proper evidentiary standard: HRS § 386-85 presumes compensability “in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary.” LIRAB mistakenly applied the preponderance standard, but because that is a more stringent test, Weeks in effect satisfied the statutory requirement. Remand for reapplication of the lower standard was unnecessary.
Relative nature of the work test:
- Integral part of the business: Maintenance, repair, and improvements are essential to preserving and enhancing rental properties. Construing “integral” narrowly to exclude the act of performing repairs conflicted with both the statutory text and common sense: without functioning roofs, gutters, plumbing, and habitable units, a rental business cannot survive.
- Worker’s own business: Although Borrson had past experience as a journeyman carpenter, he was employed full-time elsewhere and performed no outside repair business for third parties. His services were rendered solely in furtherance of Weeks’ rental enterprise.
Because Weeks failed to introduce substantial evidence that Borrson was not her employee under either prong, the presumption of coverage stood.
Covered work injury: Installing tin panels on the roof plainly constituted repair and improvement work integral to the rental business. The injury arose “in the course of employment.” Weeks offered no substantial contrary evidence (e.g., that the work was purely personal or clandestine). Accordingly, Borrson’s injury was compensable.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases

Borrson v. Weeks establishes several enduring principles for Hawaiʻi workers’ compensation law:

Employers cannot contractually exclude coverage by labeling tasks “unauthorized” or “outside the scope” if the work performed is integral to their business under HRS § 386-73.5.
Landlords who barter rent for repair and maintenance services risk exposure as employers under Chapter 386.
Businesses must maintain proper insurance when work integral to their operations is performed by non-wage tenants or casual helpers.
The lower “substantial evidence” standard governs rebuttal of compensability, reinforcing the statutes’ remedial aim to protect injured workers.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Presumption of coverage (HRS § 386-85): Any claim is assumed compensable unless the employer shows substantial evidence that it is not work-related.
Control test: Looks at whether the putative employer had the right to dictate how the work was done.
Relative nature of the work test: Requires two showings to avoid coverage: (1) the work must not be integral to the business, and (2) the worker must have an independent business of the same kind.
Substantial evidence: Evidence a reasonable mind accepts as adequate to support a conclusion; a lower threshold than preponderance of the evidence.

5. Conclusion

Borrson v. Weeks crystallizes the broad, humanitarian sweep of Hawaiʻi’s workers’ compensation program. When a landlord’s business depends on repair and maintenance of rental units, and a tenant performs those very services in exchange for rent relief and pay, an employer-employee relationship is presumed. The Court’s decision prevents businesses from evading insurance obligations through contractual labels and affirms that all reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of injured workers. Going forward, landlords and any business must recognize that integral services—even when bartered—trigger statutory coverage under Chapter 386.