ADJ14138679 · June 16, 2025

The WCJ failed to evaluate whether defendant met its burden to rebut the employment presumption under the correct legal standards, including the section 2775 ABC test and Business and Professions Code section 7451 test, and improperly placed the burden on applicant.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on March 3, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant was not employed by defendant as a driver during the period December 10, 2020 through December 24, 2020, but was an independent contractor.

Applicant testified he began picking up passengers for defendant on December 15, 2020, establishing prima facie employee status.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This shifted the burden of proof to defendant to rebut the employment presumption.

From the decision · page 6Before we evaluate the applicability of these defenses, we note that the WCJ concluded that applicant's testimony showed that he began picking up passengers for defendant on Tuesday, December 15, 2020. (Report, p. 4.) Under the WCJ's analysis of the record, then, applicant established that he rendered service to defendant, shifting the burden of proof to defendant to rebut the employment presumption.

Defendant produced no witness testimony and only submitted an Independent Contractor Agreement dated December 9, 2020.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Lack of evidence rebutting employment presumption led to remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 6Here, the record is unclear as to whether the WCJ evaluated the evidence with reference to the section 2775 ABC test because the Report states that "Proposition 22 applies during the entire CT period," suggesting that she considered the evidence solely under the statutory provisions enacted by that proposition. (Report, p. 5.) But the Report also states that "applicant did not establish that [defendant] had "the right to control" suggesting that if the WCJ applied the ABC test she erroneously imposed the burden of proof on applicant. (Report, p. 10.) Yet, as explained above, the burden is defendant's, and here, defendant produced no witnesses and only submitted the Agreement.

Labor Code sections 3351(i), 2775

Section 2775 ABC test for independent contractor status under Labor Code section 3351(i).

The WCJ did not clearly evaluate the evidence under this test, leading to an incomplete record.

From the decision · page 6As to whether defendant rebutted the employment presumption under the section 2775 ABC test, that section provides that defendant may prove that applicant was an independent contractor by demonstrating the following:

Business and Professions Code section 7451; Castellanos v. State of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 588

Business and Professions Code section 7451 test for network company independent contractor status effective December 16, 2020.

The WCJ failed to determine whether defendant met its burden under this test for the period December 16-24, 2020.

From the decision · page 7Business and Professions Code section 7451 provides that defendant may prove that a network company defendant engaged in an app-based transportation and delivery business may establish that its presumed employee driver is an independent contractor by demonstrating the following:

Labor Code section 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

Requirement for WCJ to provide a summary of evidence and reasons for decision under Labor Code section 5313.

The WCJ's opinion did not adequately reference evidence or reasons, necessitating remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 6Section 5313 requires the WCJ to produce "a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the [court's] determination was made." (See also Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22.) The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans

Burden of proof to rebut employment presumption is on the defendant once applicant establishes prima facie employee status.

The WCJ failed to apply this burden correctly, improperly placing it on the applicant.

From the decision · page 6Here, the record is unclear as to whether the WCJ evaluated the evidence with reference to the section 2775 ABC test because the Report states that "Proposition 22 applies during the entire CT period," suggesting that she considered the evidence solely under the statutory provisions enacted by that proposition. (Report, p. 5.) But the Report also states that "applicant did not establish that [defendant] had "the right to control" suggesting that if the WCJ applied the ABC test she erroneously imposed the burden of proof on applicant. (Report, p. 10.) Yet, as explained above, the burden is defendant's, and here, defendant produced no witnesses and only submitted the Agreement.

Defendant produced no witness testimony and only submitted an Independent Contractor Agreement; no evidence rebutting employment presumption was presented.

From the decision · page 6Here, the record is unclear as to whether the WCJ evaluated the evidence with reference to the section 2775 ABC test because the Report states that "Proposition 22 applies during the entire CT period," suggesting that she considered the evidence solely under the statutory provisions enacted by that proposition. (Report, p. 5.) But the Report also states that "applicant did not establish that [defendant] had "the right to control" suggesting that if the WCJ applied the ABC test she erroneously imposed the burden of proof on applicant. (Report, p. 10.) Yet, as explained above, the burden is defendant's, and here, defendant produced no witnesses and only submitted the Agreement.