ADJ18961005 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Jurisdiction / venueRemanded

The Appeals Board found the WCJ may have misapplied the burden of proof and the substantive provisions of Business and Professions Code section 7451, requiring further review.

From the decision · page 8However, the record does not reflect whether the WCJ initially determined that applicant met her burden of establishing the employment presumption, and, if so, whether defendant rebutted the employment presumption under either the Business and Professions Code section 7451 (Proposition 22) test or the section 2775 ABC test.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The record was unclear whether the WCJ properly applied the employment presumption and rebuttal under Proposition 22 and the ABC test.

The rules the panel named

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

Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018); Assembly Bill 5

ABC test for employee status under Dynamex and AB-5

The WCJ considered the ABC test but found it was superseded by Proposition 22 for app-based drivers.

From the decision · page 4In January of 2020, Assembly Bill 5 took effect. This bill codified the "ABC test" set forth in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018). Under this "ABC test," a worker could be treated as an independent contractor only if the hiring entity could meet 3 conditions. It was virtually impossible to classify workers as independent contractors after enactment of AB- 5. Thereafter, app-based transportation and delivery companies lobbied for an exception to AB-5, asserting that app-based drivers were in fact independent contractors. In November of 2020, Proposition 22 was put on the ballot and passed with the support of 58% of the voters. Proposition 22 was codified as California Business and Professions Code sections 7448 to 7467 and was given the name "Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act." This Act set forth straightforward criteria for workers to be classified as independent contractors.

California Business and Professions Code Sections 7448-7467

Proposition 22 (Business and Professions Code Sections 7448-7467)

Proposition 22 exempts app-based drivers from the ABC test and classifies them as independent contractors if four conditions are met.

From the decision · page 4Under the Act, and specifically Section 7451, drivers using rideshare and delivery applications and platforms are exempt from the ABC test and are independent contractors, and not employees or agents, if their relationship with the company meets four conditions.... Applicant became an Amazon Flex delivery partner, by her own trial testimony, in the middle of 2021, which was after enactment of Proposition 22. She described completing an online application process, wherein she was not permitted to go any further into the process until she completed each step of the process and agreed to the conditions. This included accepting the Independent Contractor Terms of Service (Exhibit C).

ADJ18961005 · September 23, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page