Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
Filed April 30, 2008, Second District, Div. Three
Cite as 2008 SOS 2613

Denial of the Writ of Administrative Mandamus Affirmed

This case tackles the issue of whether, for purposes of worker’s compensation insurance, persons who make deliveries of newspapers for the newspaper publisher Antelope Valley Press (AVP) are independent contractors or employees.

It arises not under a claim for worker’s compensation benefits by one of AVP’s carriers (carriers), but rather with respect to the insurance premium that AVP was assessed for its worker’s compensation coverage.

Antelope Valley Press (AVP) is a daily newspaper with a home delivery of 18,000 to 20,000 copies Monday through Saturday and about 25,000 copies on Sunday.

Carriers deliver these copies to the homes of the subscribers. They are paid according to the number of copies of the AVP they are given to deliver.

The written contracts entitled “Independent Contractor Distribution Agreement” between AVP and its carriers state that:

• papers must be delivered in a safe and dry condition


• carriers must use different color plastic bags to facilitate their deliveries and receipts


• carriers will receive approximately 20 complementary copies of the AVP each day

The rate per copy paid to the carriers varies.

The California State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) has classified the carriers as employees for purposes of AVP’s workers’ compensation policy.

AVP has appealed the classification to the Department of Insurance’s Administrative Hearing Bureau. The administrative law judge (ALJ) concludes that the carriers were employees for purposes of worker’s compensation insurance. The Insurance Commissioner (IC) also adopted that decision.

Thereafter, AVP files a petition for writ of administrative mandamus. Reviewing the IC’s decision under the substantial evidence test, the trial court determined that the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. It concluded that under California’s workers’ compensation law, the ALJ’s conclusion that AVP’s carriers were employees should be affirmed.

The trial court denies AVP’s petition for writ of administrative mandamus.

Hence, AVP appeals the judgment.

The California Court of Appeal affirms the trial court’s judgment. It rules that for purposes of workers compensation insurance, carriers of newspapers were employees and not independent contractors of a newspaper publisher.

Substantial evidence indicates that the newspaper maintained significant supervision over the carriers. Instances that manifest supervision are as follows:

• AVP controlled the price paid by customers for the subscription and delivery service


• payment for the carriers was based on the number of papers delivered per day


• AVP supplied many of the materials and facilities used by the carriers


• the carriers were not hired to achieve a specific result that was attainable within a finite period of time


• AVP was better suited to distribute the risk and cost of injury as a business expense for potential on-the-job injuries

Hence, the court affirms the decision of the trial court.