Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code § 3351
Labor Code section 3351 defines 'employee' as every person in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed.
Applied to determine applicant's employment status at the time of injury.
From the decision · page 3II.
We observe that California 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, 3357.) We also note that employment
relationships that result in workers' compensation liability are based upon an analysis of the
definition of an employee, rather than upon the definition of the employer. (See Heiman v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Aguilera) (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 724 (Heiman).)
Labor Code section 3351 defines "employee" as "every person in the service of an
employer under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or
written, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed...." (Lab. Code, § 3351.) Under Labor Code
Lab. Code § 2750.5
There is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that a worker performing services for which a license is required is an employee rather than an independent contractor.
Applied to reject defendant's argument that applicant was an independent contractor.
From the decision · page 4There 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....
Johnson v. Berkofsky-Barret Prods. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1067, 1072
The label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges are not countenanced.
Applied to disregard the employer's characterization of the relationship.
From the decision · page 4relationship and note that "[t]he label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive,
and subterfuges are not countenanced. [Citations.]" (Johnson v. Berkofsky-Barret Prods. (1989)
211 Cal.App.3d 1067, 1072.)
Laeng v. WCAB (1972) 6 Cal.3d 771; Pomona College v. WCAB (Robusto) (2009) 74 CCC 1284
A contract of employment is broadly interpreted to include any activity within the 'orbit of the risks of employment.'
Applied to find that applicant's continued service constituted employment despite alleged termination.
From the decision · page 11The Supreme Court in Laeng v. WCAB (1972) 6 Cal.3d 771; 37 CCC 185 made it clear that a
contract of employment is broadly interpreted to include any activity within the "orbit of the risks
of employment." Hence the fact that Defendant claims the employment relationship with the applicant