ADJ17236784 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's November 12, 2025 decision rescinded; case returned to Marina del Rey District Office for further proceedings.

Petition for reconsideration filed by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations as Administrator of the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund, seeking review of the WCJ's November 12, 2025 Findings of Fact and Award; WCJ's decision rescinded and case remanded for further proceedings.

Read the official decision →

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.

AOE/COERemandedright hip · pelvis · lower extremities

The record requires further development on the issue of employment as it relates to the relationship between applicant and the defendants, as the WCJ's finding that Esiquio Sierra was the sole employer and ultimate hirer is improbable and lacks sufficient evidence.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant testified he was paid by Esiquio Sierra in cash for work at the job site, but denied working for T9, Fullmer Construction, or AIREF.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Cal. Const., art. XIV, 4; Lab. Code, 3351, 5705(a); S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341

California no-fault workers' compensation system mandates coverage irrespective of fault, broadly defining employment and presuming service relationships as covered employees.

The protective goal of California's workers' compensation legislation is effectuated by broadly defining employment and including a general presumption that any person in service of another is a covered employee.

From the decision · page 8California has a no-fault workers' compensation system, which is mandated by the state constitution to relieve employees and their dependents of the effects of injuries sustained in the course of and arising out of their employment, irrespective of the fault of either party. (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) The protective goal of California's no-fault workers' compensation legislation is effectuated by defining "employment" broadly and by including a general presumption that any person in service of another is a covered employee. (Lab. Code, § 3351, 5705(a)1; S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80].) An "employee" is defined as "every person in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed." (Lab. Code, § 3351.) Further, any person rendering service for another, other than as an independent contractor or other excluded classification, is presumed to

Business and Professions Code, Chapter 9, 7000 et seq.

Rebuttable presumption that a worker performing services requiring a contractor's license is an employee rather than an independent contractor, with proof of independent contractor status including control over work manner.

The presumption applies to unlicensed persons hired to perform work requiring a contractor's license, shifting burden to prove independent contractor status.

From the decision · page 9any unlicensed person hired to perform work for which a contractor's license is required:

Blew v. Horner (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1380

Labor Code 2750.5 and Blew v. Horner (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1380 govern the ultimate hirer theory in workers' compensation cases.

The ultimate hirer theory applies to determine liability for workers' compensation when a subcontractor relationship exists.

From the decision · page 7Petitioner asserts that the WCJ's finding that either T9 or Fullmer did not employ applicant, and that section 2750.5 and Blew v. Horner (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1380 [51 Cal. Comp. Cases 615] don't apply as there is no "ultimate hirer" defendant in this case is in error. In this regard, we find that the record requires further development on the issue of employment as it relates to the relationship between applicant and the defendants.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's testimony regarding his employment and payment by Esiquio Sierra, and denial of employment by T9 and Fullmer Construction.

From the decision · page 2At the December 11, 2024, trial, Applicant testified that on December 26, 2022, he was working at a property in Rialto, California when he was injured by a "door, gate or fence falling on him". He was "at the property to work right before the gate fell on him. He was removing metal sheets. The metal sheets were attached to the wall of a building that was by itself. He was taking apart the building. The building was being demolished." He further testified, "he was working with four people: Juan Silva and Juan Jr. Silva, who are father and son, as well as another person, whose name he does not remember. Applicant is related to Juan Silva and Juan Jr. Silva." [December 11, 2024, MOH, p. 6, lines 16-25] Applicant further testified that," Esiquio paid him for work at the job site. He had been working for Esiquio for months. He would be paid in cash. Esiquio

Testimony and credibilityfavours Defendant prevailed

Testimony of defense witness Mason McCormick that T9 Enterprises did not employ applicant and started demolition work after the injury date.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Defendant prevailed

From the decision · page 4On [the] August 20, 2025 trial date, Jasen McDonough testified that he was employed by T9 Enterprises and has been since January 3, 2022. [August 20, 2025, MOH, p. 3, lines 12-14] He recalled that, "this project [] included grading, earthwork, and the site removal. Mr. McDonough identified the shed in Applicant's Exhibit 3, explaining "the structure was a `wash,' because the value of the scrap metal had already been stripped off the building, so the value of the building equaled the amount it would costs to tear it down." [Ibid, p. 3, lines 24- 25; p.4, lines 1-3] All work by Defendants at the Durst street address was to commence in January of 2023. Although T9 Enterprises, Inc. did go on the Durst street address prior to January 2023, i.e., the first date at the property was on December 28, 2022, there was no demolition done on the property prior to January 2023, supra.

ADJ17236784 · February 17, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page