ADJ10983565 · August 18, 2025

The WCAB found that applicant was an employee, not a volunteer, because he performed services in exchange for benefits such as residence and participation in a rehabilitation program, and Mecum had control over the work performed, establishing a special employer relationship.

From the decision · page 1Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) insurance carrier for Mecum Auctions (Mecum) and defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company (Church) carrier for Victory Outreach Chino (Victory) each seek reconsideration of the April 29, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that on the date of injury Victory was the general employer, Mission Acts Ministries (Mission) was the employer and personnel staffing agency, and Mecum was the special employer of applicant.

Applicant was a resident of Victory Outreach Chino for approximately 22 months and was required to perform chores and accept jobs outside the residence as part of the rehabilitation program.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established that the applicant was performing services in exchange for benefits, not as a volunteer.

From the decision · page 3FACTS Applicant claims injury while working at the Pomona Fairgrounds on February 17, 2017 for alleged employers Victory, Mission, and Mecum. (MOH/SOE, 06/05/2024, 2:10-13.) The only issue set for trial was whether applicant was an employee or volunteer of one or more of the named defendants. (MOH/SOE, 06/05/2024, 2:16-17.) Applicant testified on February 25, 2025, the second day of trial, that he was a resident of Victory for approximately 22 months beginning in 2016. (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 2:13-15.) As a resident of Victory, he had to comply with a schedule, do chores, apply for a welfare card, and also accept jobs outside of the residence (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 2:16-18.) Applicant testified that he was at Victory for treatment related to addiction. (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 4:5.) There was no cost out of pocket for Victory, but testified that they would require the residents to apply for food stamps and give the food stamps to Victory to feed the residents. (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 4:6-8.) The residents would also go outside of the residence to do jobs, and the money went to Victory house. (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 04:8-10.) He did not recall any fundraisers. (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 4:8.) Applicant indicated that the requests for residents for potential jobs would come to Victory.

Mecum Auctions exercised control over the applicant's work, provided uniforms, and paid for his services to Victory, establishing a special employer relationship.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This showed that the applicant was under the control of Mecum and was performing services for remuneration, supporting employee status.

Applicant received non-monetary remuneration including meals, transportation, lodging, and participation in a substance abuse rehabilitation program, which constituted compensation under workers' compensation law.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the finding that the applicant was not a volunteer but an employee entitled to benefits.

From the decision · page 15Barragan, Arriaga, and its progeny clearly establish that remuneration may take many forms, including, but not limited to, money. Here, applicant received, in addition to meals, transportation, lodging, and other incidental expenses, the benefit of a substance abuse rehabilitation program. In general rehabilitation programs entail some cost, and therefore it is clearly consistent as an example of non-monetary remuneration.

Labor Code sections 3351, 3352

Definition of employee under Labor Code section 3351 and exclusions under section 3352(a)(2) and (a)(9).

The WCAB applied these statutes to determine that the applicant was an employee and not excluded as a volunteer under the cited sections.

From the decision · page 1Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) insurance carrier for Mecum Auctions (Mecum) and defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company (Church) carrier for Victory Outreach Chino (Victory) each seek reconsideration of the April 29, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that on the date of injury Victory was the general employer, Mission Acts Ministries (Mission) was the employer and personnel staffing agency, and Mecum was the special employer of applicant.

Laeng v WCAB (1972) 6 Cal.3d 771

Liberal interpretation of workers' compensation laws to extend benefits to injured workers.

The WCAB rejected common law contract requirements and applied liberal interpretation to find employment relationship.

From the decision · page 9Zurich contends that there must be evidence of mutual consent to create an employment contract. Common law rules for creation of employment contracts have been rejected in favor of liberal interpretation to extend the benefits of California's workers compensation laws. (Laeng v WCAB (Laeng) (1972) 6 Cal.3d 771 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 185].) A contract for hire is not required for a finding of employment as section 3351 defines employment as, "every person in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract for hire. (County of Los Angeles v. WCAB (Conroy) (1981) 30 Cal.3d 391, 398 [46 Cal. Comp. Cases 1322].) Here, the facts clearly support a finding that Mecum was a special employer because it had control over applicant in terms of the work being performed, and applicant was performing a service for Mecum.

Barragan v. WCAB (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 637

Case law establishing that remuneration may be non-monetary and that one need not receive direct payment to be an employee.

The WCAB relied on Barragan to find that the applicant's receipt of benefits such as meals, lodging, and rehabilitation program participation constituted remuneration.

From the decision · page 12The case here is analogous to the facts in Barragan v. WCAB (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 637 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 467], wherein the court found that a nursing student who was exchanging services for instruction was an employee and not a volunteer. In that case, the court's analysis hinged on the fact that in return for her services she was also receiving a benefit. As a result, it could not be deemed to have been charitable. The same is true here; applicant understood that he had to perform services in return for residence and participation in the rehabilitation program. Though participation in the program, much like a nursing internship, was voluntary, the services rendered were in return for a benefit. Generally, a person must be providing purely gratuitous voluntary service from "the goodness of their heart" without any expectation of something in return. (Edwards v. Hollywood Canteen (1946) 27 Cal.2d 802.) There was no testimony provided that he would have performed any service for either Mecum or Victory if he were not in the program, therefore it could not have been voluntary.

Applicant's testimony about his residency, chores, work assignments, and supervision at Victory and Mecum.

From the decision · page 3FACTS Applicant claims injury while working at the Pomona Fairgrounds on February 17, 2017 for alleged employers Victory, Mission, and Mecum. (MOH/SOE, 06/05/2024, 2:10-13.) The only issue set for trial was whether applicant was an employee or volunteer of one or more of the named defendants. (MOH/SOE, 06/05/2024, 2:16-17.) Applicant testified on February 25, 2025, the second day of trial, that he was a resident of Victory for approximately 22 months beginning in 2016. (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 2:13-15.) As a resident of Victory, he had to comply with a schedule, do chores, apply for a welfare card, and also accept jobs outside of the residence (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 2:16-18.) Applicant testified that he was at Victory for treatment related to addiction. (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 4:5.) There was no cost out of pocket for Victory, but testified that they would require the residents to apply for food stamps and give the food stamps to Victory to feed the residents. (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 4:6-8.) The residents would also go outside of the residence to do jobs, and the money went to Victory house. (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 04:8-10.) He did not recall any fundraisers. (MOH/SOE, 02/25/2025, 4:8.) Applicant indicated that the requests for residents for potential jobs would come to Victory.