Aboytes-Mosqueda v. LFA Inc.
306 Neb. 277
| Neb. | 2020Background
- Plaintiff Cesar Aboytes-Mosqueda fell from a roof while working on a job subcontracted by Hometown Roofing to LFA Inc.; he sued Huerta (crew leader) and LFA in Workers’ Compensation Court.
- LFA contracted with Huerta to recruit a varying crew for each job; LFA received payment from the general contractor and paid a set amount to the crew, splitting funds evenly.
- Huerta testified crew members worked job-by-job, were free to accept/decline work, brought many of their own tools, and were paid by the job; LFA inspected completed work.
- Aboytes-Mosqueda claimed he was Huerta’s employee (verbal hire) and that LFA engaged in a scheme to avoid workers’ compensation liability (§ 48-116), citing LFA having Huerta sign for insurance after the accident.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found no employment contract and—applying the 10-factor test—concluded Aboytes-Mosqueda was an independent contractor. The court dismissed the claim; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aboytes-Mosqueda was an employee of Huerta (so § 48-116 could apply) | Aboytes-Mosqueda contends he was employed by Huerta (verbal hiring, Huerta provided tools/transportation, directed harness use). | Huerta/LFA contend crew members were independent subcontractors paid per job, free to set schedules, provided many of their own tools; LFA supervised only final inspection. | Court held plaintiff failed to prove employee status; factual findings supported independent-contractor conclusion. |
| Whether LFA’s post-accident request that Huerta obtain workers’ comp insurance proves a preexisting scheme to avoid liability under § 48-116 | Post-accident insurance request shows LFA knew Huerta lacked coverage and engaged in a scheme to avoid liability. | LFA argues § 48-116 applies only if the injured person was an employee of the subcontractor; post-accident conduct is irrelevant if no employment relationship existed. | Court held § 48-116 inapplicable because plaintiff was not Huerta’s employee; post-accident actions by LFA do not establish statutory-employer liability absent employee status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. CMR Constr. & Roofing of Texas, 302 Neb. 618, 924 N.W.2d 326 (2019) (explains § 48-116 statutory-employer purpose and when a principal contractor may be liable)
- Eddy v. Builders Supply Co., 304 Neb. 804, 937 N.W.2d 198 (2020) (articulates appellate standard of review for Workers’ Compensation Court findings)
- Pettit v. State, 249 Neb. 666, 544 N.W.2d 855 (1996) (sets out factors for distinguishing employee vs. independent contractor)
- Bohy v. Pfister Hybrid Co., 179 Neb. 337, 138 N.W.2d 23 (1965) (statutory-employer liability analyzed in context of subcontracting and employee status)
- Duffy Brothers Constr. Co. v. Pistone Builders, Inc., 207 Neb. 360, 299 N.W.2d 170 (1980) (addressing principal/subcontractor insurance obligations under workers’ compensation scheme)
- Hiestand v. Ristau, 135 Neb. 881, 284 N.W. 756 (1939) (early precedent on contractor-subcontractor liability and insurance expectations)