Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
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.