ADJ11656997 · October 12, 2026

The WCJ found no employment relationship based on lack of convincing evidence and payments not indicating employment. The WCAB found the record inadequate and inconsistent, granting reconsideration to further develop the record on employment status.

Payments made by defendant to applicant in July 2018 and January 2019 after the injury date.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Indicates possible employment relationship despite defendant's claim of no employment after license expiration.

Defendant Lee dissolved his business and his contractor license expired before the injury date, and he denied employing applicant at that time.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supports WCJ's initial finding but contradicted by payments and testimony, leading to record inadequacy and reconsideration.

Record is inadequate and inconsistent with gaps and missing witnesses, requiring further development.

Favours neutral

Justifies granting reconsideration and remanding for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 10Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566].) The law has long recognized that where the WCAB cannot reach a just and reasoned decision on the existing record because the evidence is insufficient, unclear or conflicting, the WCAB has the power and even the duty to further develop the record under sections 5701 and 5906. When the record is inadequate to address the issues framed by the parties, “the WCJ has a duty to develop an adequate record.” (Kuykendall v Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal. Comp. Cases 264], italics added; McClune v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The duty arises out of the Board’s obligation to completely adjudicate the issues submitted for decision by the parties, consistent with principles of due process. (Telles Transport v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Zuniga) (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 1290].) Here, the record is replete with inconsistencies and missing information, and it is inadequate to address the issue of employment. Though the record is very thin, it is shown that at various points the applicant was, in fact, an employee of defendant Lee, as demonstrated by payment to applicant by check in July of 2018 and January of 2019, as well as defendant’s own ledger showing payment to applicant in 2015.

Labor Code section 3357

Presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357 and the requirement to prove employment status.

Applicant met burden to trigger presumption of employment; burden then shifted to defendant to rebut.

Labor Code section 2750.5

Presumption that unlicensed contractor is both employee and employer, and liability of ultimate hirer under Labor Code section 2750.5.

Neither defendant Lee nor applicant had valid contractor licenses at time of injury; homeowner may be presumptive employer.

From the decision · page 11(2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 227 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 140]; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Meier) (1985) 40 Cal.3d 5 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 562].) Section 2750.5 provides that when a worker is “performing services for which a license is required” or is “performing such services for a person who is required to obtain such a license” that worker is presumed to be an employee rather than an independent contractor. In order to successfully prove independent contractor status, a person must satisfy certain factors

Applicant's testimony that he was unable to work for several months after the injury and the timing of payments by defendant.

From the decision · page 10Applicant testified that he was unable to work following the incident until September of 2018 (MOH/SOE, 04/10/2026, 3:18-19), yet defendant Lee testified that the July 2018 check was for a job he completed just one month after the injury. Though there are no medical records, applicant’s testimony that he did not work for several months after the dog bite is reasonable and therefore the payment in July is plausibly for the job at issue here. Ultimately there are conspicuous gaps in the record that cannot sustain the current findings. Further, the record is vague, at best, as to whether defendant Lee was hired by the homeowner. However, there was testimony that defendant Lee knew of the job through “TJ” and referred the job out though the record never clarifies either TJ’s role or to whom defendant Lee referred the job.

Payments by defendant to applicant in July 2018 and January 2019, and defendant's ledger showing payment in 2015.

From the decision · page 10Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566].) The law has long recognized that where the WCAB cannot reach a just and reasoned decision on the existing record because the evidence is insufficient, unclear or conflicting, the WCAB has the power and even the duty to further develop the record under sections 5701 and 5906. When the record is inadequate to address the issues framed by the parties, “the WCJ has a duty to develop an adequate record.” (Kuykendall v Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal. Comp. Cases 264], italics added; McClune v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The duty arises out of the Board’s obligation to completely adjudicate the issues submitted for decision by the parties, consistent with principles of due process. (Telles Transport v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Zuniga) (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 1290].) Here, the record is replete with inconsistencies and missing information, and it is inadequate to address the issue of employment. Though the record is very thin, it is shown that at various points the applicant was, in fact, an employee of defendant Lee, as demonstrated by payment to applicant by check in July of 2018 and January of 2019, as well as defendant’s own ledger showing payment to applicant in 2015.