Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 3Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed
denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab.
Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant
part that:
Labor Code section 3351
Labor Code section 3351
Defines 'employee' broadly to include every person in service of an employer, lawfully or unlawfully employed.
From the decision · page 6California 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. Dept. of
Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80].)
Labor Code section 3357
Labor Code section 3357
Presumption that any person rendering service for another is an employee unless proven independent contractor.
From the decision · page 6California 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. Dept. of
Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80].)
Labor Code section 2750.5
Labor Code section 2750.5
Rebuttable presumption that a worker performing services requiring a license is an employee rather than an independent contractor.
From the decision · page 8149 Cal.App.4th 1116 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 438].) With respect to contractors on construction
projects, Labor Code section 2750.5 applies in workers' compensation cases, and Labor Code
section 3351, subdivision (d) is read together with section 2750.5. (Cedillo v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 227, 232-233 [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].)
"There is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that a worker performing services
for which a license is required... or who is performing such services for a person who is required
to obtain such a license is an employee rather than an independent contractor..." (Lab. Code, § 2750.5; see also, Cedillo, supra.)
Borello v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341
Borello v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341
Employment relationship determined by right to control manner and means of work and other factors.
From the decision · page 6California 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. Dept. of
Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80].)
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903
ABC test for independent contractor status requiring hiring entity to prove all three factors.
From the decision · page 7Then, in 2018, the court adopted the ABC test as detailed in Dynamex Operations West,
Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 [83 Cal. Comp. Cases 817].1 The court made clear that
the burden is on the hiring entity to establish that the worker is an independent contractor, and to
meet this burden, the hiring entity must establish that each of the three factors of the ABC test are
satisfied, specifically: "(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity
in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of
the work and in fact; and (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the
hiring entity's business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently
established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed. [citation]."
(Id. at pp. 956-957, italics in original.)