Aboytes-Mosqueda v. LFA Inc., 944 N.W.2d 765

Claimant Cesar Aboytes-Mosqueda fell from a roof while working on a job subcontracted by LFA Inc.; he sued the on-site leader Ismael Huerta and LFA in the Workers’ Compensation Court.
Homeowner contracted with Hometown Roofing, which subcontracted to LFA; LFA hired Huerta to recruit a crew for the job.
LFA's operator testified crews vary by job and are treated as independent subcontractors; LFA paid a set amount per roof and inspected completed work.
Huerta testified he worked with many roofing companies, worked with Aboytes-Mosqueda sporadically (2–3 roofs/month in 2018), and split LFA’s payment evenly among crew members.
Aboytes-Mosqueda claimed he worked exclusively for Huerta since 2011, was paid per job, and that Huerta provided some tools, transportation, and directed safety harness use; testimony conflicted on several tool/safety facts.
The Workers’ Compensation Court found Aboytes-Mosqueda failed to prove he was Huerta’s employee and dismissed the claim; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Aboytes-Mosqueda an employee of Huerta under Neb. Rev. Stat. ch. 48?	Aboytes-Mosqueda asserted a verbal hiring agreement; claimed Huerta supplied tools, directed harness use, provided transport, and controlled work.	Huerta/LFA argued crew members were independent subcontractors paid per job, free to accept/decline work, provided their own tools, and LFA inspected final work.	The court held he was not an employee; credibility and multiple independent-contractor factors favored independent-contractor status.
Is LFA a statutory employer under § 48-116 (scheme to avoid liability)?	Aboytes-Mosqueda argued LFA’s post-accident requirement that Huerta obtain workers’ comp insurance evidenced a scheme to avoid liability.	LFA argued § 48-116 applies only if the injured person was an employee of the subcontractor; no employee relationship existed.	The court held § 48-116 inapplicable because claimant failed to prove he was Huerta’s employee; post-accident agreements were irrelevant.

Martinez v. CMR Constr. & Roofing of Texas, 302 Neb. 618, 924 N.W.2d 326 (2019) (explains purpose of § 48-116 and the statutory-employer concept)
Pettit v. State, 249 Neb. 666, 544 N.W.2d 855 (1996) (sets out independent-contractor/employee factors)
Eddy v. Builders Supply Co., 304 Neb. 804, 937 N.W.2d 198 (2020) (standard of appellate review for Workers’ Compensation Court findings)
Bohy v. Pfister Hybrid Co., 179 Neb. 337, 138 N.W.2d 23 (1965) (recognizes § 48-116 liability presupposes claimant was subcontractor’s employee)