ADJ19294102 · July 20, 2026

The WCAB found that applicant was an employee of defendant, not an independent contractor, based on control, insurance coverage, and the ABC test, and that the presumption of compensability applied because the denial was untimely.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) of April 13, 2026, wherein the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while working as a handyman on March 14, 2024, was an employee of defendant and that the claim was untimely denied and therefore the claim was compensable. Defendant contends that the Finding that the presumption of compensability applies is in excess of the WCJ’s powers and the Finding that applicant was an employee of Mech 23 is not justified by the evidence. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration solely to amend the Findings to find that applicant sustained industrial injury to the eye (Finding of Fact 1) and otherwise affirm the decision.

Applicant was found to be an employee of defendant rather than an independent contractor based on control, insurance, and contract evidence.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact established employer liability and compensability of the claim.

From the decision · page 4his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished.” (Lab. Code, § 3353.) Consequently, unless the hirer can demonstrate that the worker meets specific criteria to be considered an independent contractor, all workers are presumed to be employees. Here, defendant did not meet its burden that applicant is an independent contractor. Another consideration is that workers’ compensation insurance coverage is required for all those who employ one or more employees. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7125.2; Wright v. Issak (2007) 149 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.

The denial of the claim was untimely, triggering the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supported the claim's compensability despite defendant's denial.

From the decision · page 17B. PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY Labor Code Section 5402 (a) states: “ Knowledge of an injury, obtained from any source, on the part of an employer, his or her managing agent, superintendent, foreman, or other person in authority, or knowledge of the assertion of a claim of injury sufficient to afford opportunity to the employer to make an investigation into the facts, is equivalent to service under Section 5400. “ Reyes testified that when he fell off the ladder at Sephora on 3/14/24 that he called Mark to tell him that he could not finish the job because he was injured. However, Reyes also testified that he fainted during this incident and did not have a clear recollection of what occurred. He heard someone say, “Call 9-1-1” and he head the paramedics say, “Wake up” (MOH SOE 10/30/25 3:20- 25, 4:1-2).

Labor Code section 5402

Presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402 applies if liability is not rejected within 90 days after claim filing.

The denial letter was issued more than 90 days after claim filing, so presumption applied.

From the decision · page 17B. PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY Labor Code Section 5402 (a) states: “ Knowledge of an injury, obtained from any source, on the part of an employer, his or her managing agent, superintendent, foreman, or other person in authority, or knowledge of the assertion of a claim of injury sufficient to afford opportunity to the employer to make an investigation into the facts, is equivalent to service under Section 5400. “ Reyes testified that when he fell off the ladder at Sephora on 3/14/24 that he called Mark to tell him that he could not finish the job because he was injured. However, Reyes also testified that he fainted during this incident and did not have a clear recollection of what occurred. He heard someone say, “Call 9-1-1” and he head the paramedics say, “Wake up” (MOH SOE 10/30/25 3:20- 25, 4:1-2).

Labor Code section 2750.5

Labor Code section 2750.5 establishes presumption that a worker requiring a license is an employee rather than independent contractor.

Applicant was found to be an employee under this section because defendant did not prove independent contractor status.

From the decision · page 4his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished.” (Lab. Code, § 3353.) Consequently, unless the hirer can demonstrate that the worker meets specific criteria to be considered an independent contractor, all workers are presumed to be employees. Here, defendant did not meet its burden that applicant is an independent contractor. Another consideration is that workers’ compensation insurance coverage is required for all those who employ one or more employees. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7125.2; Wright v. Issak (2007) 149 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.

Labor Code section 5909

Labor Code section 5909 requires the Appeals Board to act on petitions for reconsideration within 60 days of case transmission.

The Board acted within 60 days, so the petition was timely decided.

From the decision · page 2Former Labor Code 1 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, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

Labor Code section 3600(a)

Labor Code section 3600(a) provides employer liability for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment without regard to negligence.

Applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment, so employer is liable.

From the decision · page 5233; Hernandez v. Chavez Roofing, Inc. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1092 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rinaldi, supra.) Here, defendant argued that the subcontractor agreement was applicable, but did not offer any evidence that applicant was insured for workers’ compensation, and thus, applicant is also an employee on that basis. III. Section 3600(a) provides for liability for injuries sustained “arising out of and in the course of the employment.” An employer is liable for workers’ compensation benefits “without regard to negligence.” (Lab. Code, § 3600(a).) Whether an employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment is generally a question of fact to be determined in light of the particular circumstances of the case. (Wright v. Beverly Fabrics (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346, 353 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 51].) Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Applicant testified that, while working for defendant fixing the metal arm at the top of a broken door, a screw from the metal part fell and struck him in the eye.

Applicant's testimony about injury and work conditions, including falling from ladder and fainting, supported compensability and employment status.

From the decision · page 5233; Hernandez v. Chavez Roofing, Inc. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1092 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rinaldi, supra.) Here, defendant argued that the subcontractor agreement was applicable, but did not offer any evidence that applicant was insured for workers’ compensation, and thus, applicant is also an employee on that basis. III. Section 3600(a) provides for liability for injuries sustained “arising out of and in the course of the employment.” An employer is liable for workers’ compensation benefits “without regard to negligence.” (Lab. Code, § 3600(a).) Whether an employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment is generally a question of fact to be determined in light of the particular circumstances of the case. (Wright v. Beverly Fabrics (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346, 353 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 51].) Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Applicant testified that, while working for defendant fixing the metal arm at the top of a broken door, a screw from the metal part fell and struck him in the eye.