What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted in part; WCJ Findings of Fact affirmed as to Hoplon Group, LLC as employer on injury date; issue of Liebo Builders' employment deferred; matter remanded for further proceedings.
Petition for reconsideration filed by defendant The Hoplon Group, LLC, seeking review of WCJ Findings of Fact issued February 4, 2026; WCJ issued Report and Recommendation to deny petition; WCAB granted reconsideration, affirmed WCJ finding that Hoplon was employer on injury date, deferred issue of Liebo Builders' employment status, and remanded for further proceedings.
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 WCJ found Hoplon Group, LLC was the employer on the injury date based on testimony and evidence, but deferred the issue of Liebo Builders' employment status due to unclear control and subcontracting arrangements.
From the decision · page 1Defendant The Hoplon Group, LLC (Hoplon) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 4, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant was employed by the Hoplon Group on December 1, 2020, the date of the alleged work-related injury.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant testified that Edgar hired, supervised, paid him, and told him he worked for Liebo Builders.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This testimony established the applicant's prima facie case of employment.
From the decision · page 10exchanged numbers, and Edgar called him to schedule work. (Id.; Ex. 2, screenshots of text messages from applicant's phone.) Applicant testified that Edgar hired him, Edgar told him when to start work, Edgar was his supervisor, and Edgar paid him. (Applicant's testimony, MOH/SOE, February 24, 2025, pp. 7-10, 12, MOH/SOE, July 25, 2025, p. 8, 9.)
Yousef Liebowitz testified that Liebo Builders subcontracted most work to Hoplon and had no labor employees at the jobsite.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This testimony supported the finding that Hoplon was the employer and raised questions about Liebo's employment status.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903
ABC test for independent contractor status under Labor Code section 2775, as established in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903.
The Board applied the ABC test to determine whether the worker was an employee or independent contractor.
From the decision · page 11In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 817], the court provided the "ABC test," which was then codified in section 2775. For this date of injury, under section 3351(i), section 2775 controls the analysis for determining whether an employee is an independent contractor.3 Section 2775(b) states in pertinent part:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony that Edgar hired, supervised, paid him, and told him he worked for Liebo Builders, supported by text messages and photographs of the jobsite.
From the decision · page 2Applicant testified in pertinent part as follows:
Testimony of Yousef Liebowitz that Liebo Builders subcontracted most work to Hoplon and had no labor employees at the jobsite, and that subcontractors wore Liebo Builders T-shirts and put up lawn signs.
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.