What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant was denied by the WCAB panel after review of the WCJ's Report and Opinion on Decision.
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 / venueApplicant prevailedupper extremity · hips · shoulders · lower extremities
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This created a conclusive presumption of employee status under Labor Code Section 2750.5.
From the decision · page 9Under Labor Code Section 2750.5, there is a rebuttable presumption that a worker performing services for which a contractor's license is required pursuant to Chapter 9 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, 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. Under BPC 7026, a contractor is "any person who unde1iakes to or offers to undertake to, or purports to have the capacity to undertake to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or herself or by or through others, construct, alter, repair, add to, subtract from, improve, move wreck or demolish any building,... " Labor Code Section 2750.5 further adds that "any person performing any function or activity for which a license is required... shall hold a valid contractors' license as a condition of having independent contractor status." The California Supreme Court, in SCIF v. WCAB (Meier) (1985) 50 CCC 562, held that LC 2750.5 is applicable in workers' compensation cases. The Court of Appeals has held that LC2750.5 creates a conclusive presumption that an unlicensed person performing work requiring a license is an employee. (Blew v. Horner (1986) 51 CCC 615, 617.)