ADJ8558686 · September 25, 2026

From the decision · page 7Opinski testified that he was acting as a general contractor for GOC when he “paid applicant by checks drawn on the OPD account[] and funded by GOC” and that this testimony was uncontroverted by evidence that OPD had “dealings with applicant.” (Petition, p. 9:6-12.) When a WCJ's findings are supported by solid, credible evidence, they are to be accorded great weight by the Appeals Board and rejected only on the basis of contrary evidence of considerable substantiality. (Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp.

Applicant was paid by OP Development, Inc. and worked on properties owned by OP Development, Inc.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported finding that applicant was employee of OP Development, Inc. rather than Greg Opinski Construction, Inc.

From the decision · page 4the applicant was paid by check from OPD. The recipient of the applicant's work was GOC. Thereafter, OPD, when the property was sold, the profits went to the OPD checking account which were to be used for future investments. (Question: When was GOC repaid?) When GOC received payments from OPD, they were not required to be reported.

Greg Opinski's trial testimony was inconsistent with his earlier deposition testimony and lacked documentary corroboration.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported the WCJ's credibility determination rejecting defendants' contention that applicant was employed by Greg Opinski Construction, Inc.

From the decision · page 7Opinski testified that he was acting as a general contractor for GOC when he “paid applicant by checks drawn on the OPD account[] and funded by GOC” and that this testimony was uncontroverted by evidence that OPD had “dealings with applicant.” (Petition, p. 9:6-12.) When a WCJ's findings are supported by solid, credible evidence, they are to be accorded great weight by the Appeals Board and rejected only on the basis of contrary evidence of considerable substantiality. (Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp.

No evidence of umbrella coverage or alter ego relationship between GOC and OPD was presented.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supported rejection of alter ego theory to impute liability to GOC.

Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4

California no-fault workers' compensation system liability for employees injured in course of employment

Employment is broadly defined to provide protection irrespective of fault.

From the decision · page 6Workers’ Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, March 2018 Update) Supplemental Proceedings, § 23.74, p. 23-76.) We otherwise affirm the findings of the WCJ. We observe that California has a no-fault workers' compensation system. With few exceptions, all California employers are liable for the compensation provided by the system to employees injured or disabled 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 manifested "by defining 'employment' broadly in terms of

Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 301

Alter ego doctrine applies only in narrowly defined circumstances to accomplish justice and equity

Alter ego doctrine not applicable to impute liability to GOC for workers' compensation purposes in this case.

Labor Code section 2750.5

Labor Code section 2750.5 presumption of employment for workers performing services requiring contractor's license

No credible evidence that GOC served as general contractor or that applicant was independent contractor; liability not imposed under section 2750.5.

From the decision · page 9Lastly, defendants contend in the alternative that the WCJ erroneously failed to find that applicant was employed by GOC under section 2750.5 and Rinaldi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Curry) (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 571, 574 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 366]. Business & Professions Code section 7026.1(a)(2)(A) provides that a contractor’s license is required for “any person,... corporation, or company, who or which undertakes... to construct any... home improvement project, or part thereof.” (B&P, § 7026.1(a)(2)(A).) A worker who performs services for which a contractor’s license is required, or who performs such services for a person who is required to obtain such a license, is rebuttably presumed to be an employee rather than an independent contractor for purposes of workers’ compensation. (See § 2750.5.) Where a subcontractor is unlicensed and performs work for which a license is required, section 2750.5 requires that workers' compensation liability for the subcontractor's employees be imposed on the general contractor as a matter of law. (Curry, supra.) Here, we have explained that the record shows that applicant was OPD’s employee and there is no credible evidence that GOC served as general contractor on any OPD project.

Greg Opinski's trial testimony found to have limited credibility due to contradictions with earlier deposition testimony

From the decision · page 10For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that the Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on Decision issued on October 18, 2021 is AFFIRMED, except that it is AMENDED as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The parties’ August 16, 2021 stipulation that applicant, while allegedly employed on October 23, 2011 by Greg Opinski Construction, Inc., or OP Development, Inc., (Everest National Insurance Company denied that applicant was an employee of Greg Opinski Construction, Inc.) sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the wrist, arm, leg, and foot resulting from a fall from a ladder while painting at 1536 Figueroa Drive in Merced, California is accepted as fact. 2. The parties’ August 16, 2021 stipulation that the case-in-chief was resolved by Compromise and Release is accepted as fact. 3. At the time of injury, Greg Opinski Construction Inc.’s workers' compensation carrier was Everest National Insurance Company (Everest National Insurance Company denied coverage for OP Development, Inc.). 4. All exhibits submitted at trial are admitted into evidence. 5. Greg Opinski’s trial testimony is found to have limited credibility and weight, primarily due to the fact that his trial testimony is contradicted by his earlier deposition testimony.