What the panel ordered
Findings of Fact issued June 25, 2025, rescinded; new Findings of Fact substituted; matter returned to trial level for further proceedingsp. 8
Petition for Reconsideration granted; decision after reconsideration issued rescinding prior Findings of Fact and substituting new Findings of Fact
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 23, 2025.
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.
Defendant failed to meet its burden to prove that Business and Professions Code section 7451 applies to applicant's work as an app-based driver for Amazon, thus the presumption of independent contractor status does not apply.
From the decision · page 47, line 3.) DISCUSSION At trial, defendant raised the sole issue of whether applicant is an independent contractor pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7451 et seq. According to the language of Business and Professions Code section 7451, when a company establishes that the services rendered fall within section 7451, a worker is deemed an independent contractor, notwithstanding any contrary provision of the Labor Code. However, to be clear, in this decision, we do not consider the application of this language in section 7451 in the global context of the mandate in the Constitution and the statutory framework in the Labor Code regarding employment and workplace injuries. Instead, we consider only the specific issue raised by defendant at trial, which is whether the provisions of Business and Professions Code section 7451 et seq. apply to this applicant’s work at Amazon. Since we find that it does not apply, we need not address the larger issue of the application of Business and Professions Code section 7451 et seq. with respect to the Constitution and the Labor Code.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was assigned delivery blocks with 40 to 50 packages, exceeding the statutory limit of 12 distinct orders per delivery request under Business and Professions Code section 7451.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact showed that the applicant did not meet the definition of an 'app-based driver' under the statute, undermining defendant's claim of independent contractor status.
From the decision · page 6(Bus. & Prof., § 7463(f), (g), (h), (emphasis added).) First, and pursuant to Amazon’s own terms of service, applicant was not permitted to accept or decline each delivery request. Instead, Amazon’s app was based on assigned blocks of time, during which applicant was expected to deliver dozens of individual packages. Next, even if we interpreted Amazon’s time blocks as ‘delivery requests,’ the unrebutted evidence is that applicant would be scheduled for 40 to 50 deliveries in a single block. To qualify under the Business and Professions Code a delivery request may not include more than 12 distinct orders. Next, there is no evidence that Amazon maintained records of engaged time and engaged miles. On the contrary, defendant’s own representative testified that there was no tracking of delivery partners when they are on their routes. (Transcript of Record, March 11, 2025, p. 43, lines 19-20.) Based on the record before us, Amazon has not established that it constitutes a “delivery network company” or that applicant constituted an “app-based driver” pursuant to Business and
Amazon did not maintain records of engaged time and engaged miles for the applicant's deliveries.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of tracking evidence undermined defendant's claim that the applicant was an app-based driver under the statute.
From the decision · page 6(Bus. & Prof., § 7463(f), (g), (h), (emphasis added).) First, and pursuant to Amazon’s own terms of service, applicant was not permitted to accept or decline each delivery request. Instead, Amazon’s app was based on assigned blocks of time, during which applicant was expected to deliver dozens of individual packages. Next, even if we interpreted Amazon’s time blocks as ‘delivery requests,’ the unrebutted evidence is that applicant would be scheduled for 40 to 50 deliveries in a single block. To qualify under the Business and Professions Code a delivery request may not include more than 12 distinct orders. Next, there is no evidence that Amazon maintained records of engaged time and engaged miles. On the contrary, defendant’s own representative testified that there was no tracking of delivery partners when they are on their routes. (Transcript of Record, March 11, 2025, p. 43, lines 19-20.) Based on the record before us, Amazon has not established that it constitutes a “delivery network company” or that applicant constituted an “app-based driver” pursuant to Business and
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5705; Evid. Code section 500; Labor Code section 3202.5; Weiner v. Fleischman (1991) 54 Cal.3d 476, 483
Defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish applicability of Business and Professions Code section 7451.
Defendant failed to meet this burden to prove that Business and Professions Code section 7451 applies to applicant.
From the decision · page 5As the party asserting the issue, defendant has the burden of proof. (Lab. Code, § 5705; see also Evid. Code, § 500.) Defendant’s burden is by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5; Weiner v. Fleischman (1991) 54 Cal.3d 476, 483.) Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7451: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and any orders, regulations, or opinions of the Department of Industrial Relations or any board, division, or commission within the Department of Industrial Relations, an app-based driver is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent with respect to the app-based driver’s relationship with a network company if the following conditions are met:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony and evidence showed she was assigned delivery blocks with 40 to 50 packages, not individual delivery requests as defined by statute, and Amazon did not track engaged time or miles, undermining defendant's claim.
From the decision · page 6(Bus. & Prof., § 7463(f), (g), (h), (emphasis added).) First, and pursuant to Amazon’s own terms of service, applicant was not permitted to accept or decline each delivery request. Instead, Amazon’s app was based on assigned blocks of time, during which applicant was expected to deliver dozens of individual packages. Next, even if we interpreted Amazon’s time blocks as ‘delivery requests,’ the unrebutted evidence is that applicant would be scheduled for 40 to 50 deliveries in a single block. To qualify under the Business and Professions Code a delivery request may not include more than 12 distinct orders. Next, there is no evidence that Amazon maintained records of engaged time and engaged miles. On the contrary, defendant’s own representative testified that there was no tracking of delivery partners when they are on their routes. (Transcript of Record, March 11, 2025, p. 43, lines 19-20.) Based on the record before us, Amazon has not established that it constitutes a “delivery network company” or that applicant constituted an “app-based driver” pursuant to Business and
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.