Dominguez: The Company Had to Rebut the Driver’s Employment Presumption

Being told you are an independent contractor can leave you wondering whether a work-related illness is covered at all. A signed agreement may be part of the evidence, but the actual work and the legal test still matter. In Dominguez v. Via Transportation, Inc., No. ADJ14138679 (WCAB June 16, 2025), the Appeals Board set aside a finding against a driver because the judge had not properly assessed the company’s burden to rebut the employment presumption.

The case also involved a timing problem. The driver’s claimed work period crossed the date Proposition 22 took effect. The Board required the judge to apply the correct framework to the relevant period and explain the evidence supporting the result. That gave the driver another opportunity to have employment status decided under the proper burden of proof.

The driver’s first passenger trip preceded Proposition 22’s effective date

Enrique Dominguez claimed injury to his respiratory system and COVID-19 from work as a driver during December 10–24, 2020. The trial concerned employment, independent-contractor status and attorney’s fees. The judge found that he was an independent contractor, and Dominguez sought reconsideration. These were allegations of a work injury; the employment ruling was the issue the Board needed to review. Dominguez identifies that procedural setting.

The judge’s report stated that Dominguez began picking up passengers on December 15. Proposition 22 took effect the following day. Yet the judge applied it to the entire claimed period based on the “totality of the circumstances.” The Board identified both the date problem and the judge’s statements that the driver had failed to prove the company’s lack of compliance with the statute. Dominguez reproduces the report’s reasoning.

The company’s trial submissions were limited. The opinion lists an independent-contractor agreement, the claim denial and the application for adjudication; the company presented no witness testimony. The Board also explained that the application was a pleading in the proceedings, rather than a document properly designated as evidence. That distinction matters when a party’s claim about the relationship is being evaluated as proof of the relationship. Dominguez describes the submissions and that correction.

Showing service for the company shifted the burden

Labor Code section 3357 supplies the employment presumption for a person rendering service for another, subject to independent-contractor status and other express exclusions. In this case, the driver first had to show that he rendered service for the defendant. The company then had to rebut the presumption by proving an excluded status.

The judge’s own account supplied an important starting point: Dominguez had picked up passengers for the defendant on December 15. The Board explained that this finding established the service that shifted the burden. The judge therefore needed to evaluate the company’s proof under the applicable classification rules. Requiring the driver to show that the company lacked a right of control put the burden on the wrong party. Dominguez sets out the presumption and applies it to the judge’s findings.

The current section 3351 defines employment broadly in terms of service under an express or implied contract of hire. Its subdivision (i), beginning July 1, 2020, includes individuals who are employees under section 2775. For someone reviewing a denial, the practical starting point is the evidence of the service performed and the particular classification rule the company invokes.

The ABC test required the company to address all three conditions

The Board examined the need for analysis under Labor Code section 2775. Under its ABC test, the hiring entity must establish each of these conditions for independent-contractor treatment:

• The worker is free from its control and direction in performing the work, both under the contract and in practice.
• The work falls outside the usual course of its business.
• The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature.

The report left it unclear whether the judge had applied that test. Its statement that Proposition 22 governed the entire claimed period suggested one approach, while its emphasis on what the driver had failed to prove suggested a misplaced burden under another. The Board required a new determination because the record did not show that the judge had evaluated whether the company rebutted the presumption under the ABC test. Dominguez explains the problem.

Section 2775 also preserves specified exceptions and addresses situations in which a different classification test governs. The task in a particular claim is to identify the applicable rule and then test the evidence against it. In Dominguez, the conflicting explanations in the report made that step especially important.

Proposition 22 required attention to both the date and the working conditions

Dominguez explains that Proposition 22’s effective date could not change based on the surrounding circumstances. The claimed period began before December 16, 2020, and the judge’s own findings placed passenger work on December 15. The Board therefore required attention to which rule applied to which part of the claimed period.

The current Business and Professions Code section 7451 sets out the conditional independent-contractor rule for an app-based driver’s relationship with a network company. The rule requires that the company:

• Does not unilaterally prescribe particular dates, times of day or minimum hours for logging into the platform.
• Does not require acceptance of a particular ride or delivery request to maintain platform access.
• Does not restrict work through other network companies outside engaged time.
• Does not restrict work in another lawful occupation or business.

For the statutory rule to apply, the conditions must favor the driver’s independence in each respect. The company bore the burden of demonstrating the rule’s application. The judge instead focused on the driver’s failure to produce evidence that the company had violated the conditions. The Board returned the matter for the judge to evaluate the evidence with the burden properly assigned. Dominguez addresses the effective date and conditions, with the burden error explained in the following portion of the opinion.

The agreement raised a separate question about the company’s identity

The independent-contractor agreement named Nomad Transit LLC as the contracting company. It described transportation for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Mobility On-Demand service using the Via app. Via Transportation, the named defendant, was not itself a party to that agreement. The Board questioned why the agreement had been treated as conclusive proof concerning Via and why Via, rather than Nomad or another participant, had been named as the alleged employer. Dominguez identifies those gaps.

Those observations directed further investigation. The names on an app, agreement, payment record and claim denial can refer to different participants in the same service. Counsel needs to identify what each participant actually did and how the documents connect that participant to the worker. The Board urged development of a complete record so the employment issue could be meaningfully decided.

The contract also needed to be considered alongside actual working practices. A description of independent status leaves factual questions about who set work requirements, how the app operated and what restrictions applied. In this record, testimony from a company representative was missing. The Board highlighted that absence when explaining why the agreement alone had not supplied an adequate basis for the ruling.

The new decision needed evidence and reasons tied to the correct test

Dominguez connected the proof problems to Labor Code section 5313 and the record principles explained in Hamilton. The judge needed to identify the evidence supporting the findings and explain how it justified the result. A reviewing panel could then evaluate whether the proper burden and legal framework had been applied.

The current section 5313 continues to require a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons for the determination. Here, that meant an explanation of the company’s evidence under the applicable classification rules, including the relevant work dates. Our Hamilton analysis explains the broader distinction between documents in a case file and an identifiable record of admitted evidence.

The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the March 3, 2025 findings and award, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The next step was a new determination on a properly developed and evaluated record. Dominguez contains the grant of reconsideration, followed by the formal rescission and return order.

Organize the work history, the agreement and each company’s role

If a workers’ compensation denial relies on independent-contractor status, bring the operative agreement, denial, work dates, trip or assignment history and available payment records. Identify the legal names appearing on those documents. Explain how scheduling, acceptance of work and restrictions operated in practice, including any difference between the written terms and actual instructions.

Keep the illness or injury evidence alongside those classification records. Medical records and an account of the alleged work exposure address the injury claim; the work arrangement addresses employment status. In Dominguez, the parties still needed a properly reasoned employment determination before the claim could proceed on that basis.

Our Garcia analysis addresses a different Proposition 22 problem: proof that the delivery business and work fit the statutory definitions. Dominguez focuses on the employment presumption, the company’s proof burden, the effective-date boundary and the evidence identifying the working relationship. The useful review follows the specific denial and record rather than assuming that an app or a contract label settles coverage.