Every year, injured Californians walk away from real claims because someone once handed them a 1099. The form settles nothing. Comp coverage turns on the relationship — and California stacked the deck on purpose.
The presumption runs in the worker’s favor
The Labor Code defines “employee” broadly (§3351) and presumes a person performing services is one — the hirer bears the burden of proving contractor status. Since AB 5, that proof usually means the ABC test (§2775): (A) free from the hirer’s control, (B) work outside the hirer’s usual course of business, and (C) an independently established trade. Prong B does the damage — a drywaller working for a drywall company, a driver for a delivery company, a stylist for a salon: inside the usual course, presumptively employees.
Misclassified and hurt: the play
File the claim. If the hirer has comp insurance, the fight is ordinary. If they don’t — the usual companion of misclassification — the UEBTF pays the benefits and chases the hirer personally afterward, the same fund the construction guide covers. Once employment is established, everything else is standard: the rating pipeline, the calculator, the settlement math. Employers reading this: misclassification plus an injury is the single most expensive paperwork shortcut in California — the employer’s guide.
The Prop 22 island
App-based rideshare and delivery drivers live under a different regime: Prop 22 trades comp for platform-purchased occupational accident coverage — its own benefits, limits, and claim process, administered by the platform’s insurer rather than the WCAB. It covers its defined class only; gig workers outside it (and drivers whose work falls outside the statute’s scope) return to the ABC analysis above.
Estimates for informational use; not legal advice — misclassification cases are fact-intensive and counsel-worthy.
Rate your spine right here
Same engine as the tables above — pick your occupation and age, slide the WPI from the report, and carry it into the full calculator when you’re ready.