What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; arbitrator's decision rescinded; new decision issued finding applicant not covered by Zenith Insurance Company workers' compensation policy due to valid waiver.
Petition for reconsideration filed by defendant Zenith Insurance Company, seeking review of an arbitrator's Conclusion of Law & Order dated February 10, 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.
The applicant executed a valid written waiver of workers' compensation rights, excluding him from coverage under the policy. The waiver is conclusive under Labor Code section 3352(a)(17), and the applicant's subjective intent or failure to read the waiver does not invalidate it.
From the decision · page 5In Sanchez, the injured manager also claimed not to have read the waiver, but the arbitrator correctly found that "He is presumed to have read what he signed and he should be bound by its terms." (Id. at p. *8.) Although the arbitrator in Sanchez also stated that the manager had the terms of the waiver explained, that additional fact was not essential to the holding. Applicant filed a valid waiver of workers' compensation coverage excluding him from the definition of employee. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the arbitrator's decision and issue a new decision finding that applicant was not an employee pursuant to Labor Code section 3352(a)(17) and thus excluded from workers' compensation coverage. Since applicant's only argument for not applying the express waiver was the fact that he did not read it, we not need discuss the contours and limits, if any, of the conclusive presumption codified in section 3352(a)(17).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant executed a valid written waiver of workers' compensation rights on October 28, 2020.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This waiver excludes the applicant from the definition of employee and workers' compensation coverage under the policy.
From the decision · page 6FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant is a managing member of a limited liability company who executed a valid written waiver of his workers' compensation rights on October 28, 2020.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code section 3352(a)(17)
There is a conclusive presumption that a person who executes a waiver pursuant to Labor Code section 3352(a)(17) is not covered by workers' compensation benefits.
The waiver executed by the applicant is expressly sanctioned by this statute, leading to exclusion from coverage.
From the decision · page 5In Sanchez, the injured manager also claimed not to have read the waiver, but the arbitrator correctly found that "He is presumed to have read what he signed and he should be bound by its terms." (Id. at p. *8.) Although the arbitrator in Sanchez also stated that the manager had the terms of the waiver explained, that additional fact was not essential to the holding. Applicant filed a valid waiver of workers' compensation coverage excluding him from the definition of employee. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the arbitrator's decision and issue a new decision finding that applicant was not an employee pursuant to Labor Code section 3352(a)(17) and thus excluded from workers' compensation coverage. Since applicant's only argument for not applying the express waiver was the fact that he did not read it, we not need discuss the contours and limits, if any, of the conclusive presumption codified in section 3352(a)(17).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant did not read the waiver but did not allege fraud, duress, or misrepresentation.
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.