Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 3351, 3357
Labor Code section 3351 and 3357 establish a presumption of employment for persons rendering service to another, excluding independent contractors.
The WCAB applied these statutes to conclude the applicant was an employee and not an independent contractor.
From the decision · page 8California has a no-fault workers' compensation system. With few exceptions, all
California employers are liable for the compensation provided by the system to employees injured
or disabled in the course of and arising out of their employment, "irrespective of the fault of either
party." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) The protective goal of California's no-fault workers'
compensation legislation is manifested "by defining `employment' broadly in terms of `service to
an employer' and by including a general presumption that any person `in service to another' is a
covered `employee.'" (Lab. Code, § 3351, 5705(a); S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of
Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80].) Any person rendering
service for another, other than as an independent contractor or other excluded classification, is
legally presumed to be an employee. (Lab. Code, § 3357.)
Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4
California Constitution Article XIV, Section 4 establishes a no-fault workers' compensation system covering employees injured in the course of employment.
The WCAB cited this constitutional provision to emphasize the protective goal of the workers' compensation system.
From the decision · page 8California has a no-fault workers' compensation system. With few exceptions, all
California employers are liable for the compensation provided by the system to employees injured
or disabled in the course of and arising out of their employment, "irrespective of the fault of either
party." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) The protective goal of California's no-fault workers'
compensation legislation is manifested "by defining `employment' broadly in terms of `service to
an employer' and by including a general presumption that any person `in service to another' is a
covered `employee.'" (Lab. Code, § 3351, 5705(a); S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of
Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80].) Any person rendering
service for another, other than as an independent contractor or other excluded classification, is
legally presumed to be an employee. (Lab. Code, § 3357.)
Barragan v. WCAB (1987) 52 CCC 467
Barragan v. WCAB (1987) 52 CCC 467 holds that training and instruction can constitute sufficient consideration to support an employment contract even without monetary wages.
The WCAB relied on Barragan to find that job training and provision of a trailer constituted adequate consideration for employment.
From the decision · page 8An employee may be compensated for services provided by means of any property
of value, or even by a return of services pursuant to agreement, and need not be in
the form of monetary wages. (Barragan v. WCAB (1987) 52 CCC 467, 474.) In
Barragan v. WCAB the Court of Appeal held that training and instruction received
by a student participating in an externship program at a hospital was sufficient
consideration to support an employment contract. (Barragan v. WCAB (1987) 52
CCC 467, 474.) Similarly, in this matter, the provided job training at the
defendant's office coupled with the furnishing of a trailer constitutes adequate
consideration for an employee-employer relationship.
Laeng v WCAB (1972) 6 Cal.3d 771
Laeng v WCAB (1972) 6 Cal.3d 771 rejects common law rules for employment contracts in favor of liberal interpretation to extend workers' compensation benefits.
The WCAB applied Laeng to reject defendant's argument about the employment contract and to include the applicant within the scope of employment during tryout.
From the decision · page 8While we disagree with defendant's contention that an employment contract was not in
effect, 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). As defendant argues in this case, in Laeng the applicant
suffered a compensable injury while participating in a tryout and before an offer of work was
made. To the extent that the applicant here was "trying out" for the job, she too was brought into
the scope of employment. It is irrelevant unsatisfactory employee. Further, in Barragan v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Barragan) (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 637 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 467],
the Court of Appeal explicitly held that "there is a long line of case law establishing the rule that
one need not receive actual payment of money or wages in order to be an employee for purposes
of the Workers Compensation Act." (Id. at p. 649.) While it is unclear whether applicant was
actually paid, she was in the service of the employer training for at least two months and was living
S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341
S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 establishes broad definitions of employment and presumption of coverage under workers' compensation laws.
The WCAB used Borello to support the presumption of employment and the broad definition of service to an employer.
From the decision · page 8California has a no-fault workers' compensation system. With few exceptions, all
California employers are liable for the compensation provided by the system to employees injured
or disabled in the course of and arising out of their employment, "irrespective of the fault of either
party." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) The protective goal of California's no-fault workers'
compensation legislation is manifested "by defining `employment' broadly in terms of `service to
an employer' and by including a general presumption that any person `in service to another' is a
covered `employee.'" (Lab. Code, § 3351, 5705(a); S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of
Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80].) Any person rendering
service for another, other than as an independent contractor or other excluded classification, is
legally presumed to be an employee. (Lab. Code, § 3357.)