At Yrulegui & Roberts, we represent employers and insurers in navigating the complexities of workers’ compensation law. The recent case Jose Pineda v. D. John Roser, Inc. serves as an instructive analysis of the applicability of Labor Code Section 3352(a)(8), the presumption of employment under Section 2750.5, and the legal distinction between personal and business liability. Below, we provide a summary of the decision and its implications for California workers’ compensation defense.
Case Overview
The matter concerned an applicant who sustained alleged injuries while performing residential painting work. The applicant sought workers’ compensation benefits, asserting that he was employed by a contracting business owned by the homeowner. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) initially found the applicant was an employee of the business, thereby subjecting the claim to workers’ compensation liability. However, upon reconsideration, the WCAB reversed this determination, concluding that the applicant’s employment was excluded under Labor Code Section 3352(a)(8).
Key Legal Issues
1. Exclusion for Residential Workers (Labor Code § 3352(a)(8))
Pursuant to Labor Code Section 3352(a)(8), workers performing residential duties for less than 52 hours within a 90-day period, or earning less than $100.00 during that period, are excluded from workers’ compensation coverage. The WCAB determined that the applicant met the criteria for exclusion, as his employment was of limited duration and compensation.
Legal Implication: The exclusionary provisions of Section 3352(a)(8) provide a robust defense against workers’ compensation liability for residential employment scenarios where statutory thresholds are not met.
2. Presumption of Employment Under Labor Code § 2750.5
The WCJ relied on Section 2750.5 to find the applicant was an employee due to his lack of a contractor’s license. However, the WCAB clarified that Section 2750.5’s presumption of employment does not override the exclusion set forth in Section 3352(a)(8). Instead, these provisions operate in distinct spheres: Section 2750.5 may apply in civil tort litigation, while Section 3352(a)(8) determines workers’ compensation eligibility.
Legal Implication: Section 2750.5 cannot be invoked to create workers’ compensation liability where statutory exclusions under Section 3352(a)(8) apply.
3. Determination of Employer
A critical issue in this case was whether the applicant was employed by the individual homeowner or the corporate entity owned by the homeowner. The WCAB found substantial evidence that:
- The homeowner personally hired and paid the applicant.
- The corporate entity did not engage in residential work and was uninvolved in the painting project.
Legal Implication: When assessing liability, clear distinctions must be drawn between personal and corporate activities to determine the proper employer.
Practice Pointers for Employers and Insurers
- Clearly Define Employment Relationships:
- Ensure proper delineation between personal and business activities, especially when hiring workers for non-commercial tasks.
- Use separate payment methods and agreements for personal projects to avoid confusion.
- Assert Statutory Exclusions:
- In cases involving residential employment, carefully assess whether the exclusionary thresholds under Section 3352(a)(8) apply.
- Leverage Section 2750.5 Judiciously:
- While Section 2750.5 may establish employment in certain contexts, its application is limited when workers’ compensation exclusions are present.
Conclusion
This decision underscores the importance of robust evidence and statutory analysis in defending against workers’ compensation claims. Employers and insurers must diligently document employment arrangements and assert relevant exclusions to avoid unintended liability. At Yrulegui & Roberts, our team is equipped to guide you through the intricacies of California workers’ compensation law.
For more information or assistance with your case, contact us today.
