CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ1544610 (MON 0209957)
Regular
May 11, 2012

HILDA RUIZ-GUZMAN vs. EL POLLO LOCO; SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves a dispute over the adequacy of a proposed Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement for a worker with extensive injuries. The WCJ initially found the C&R inadequate, leading to Petitions for Reconsideration from both the applicant and defendant. The Appeals Board has scheduled a Commissioners' Conference to discuss the C&R, including the annuity rate, cost-of-living adjustments for future payments, the identity of the liable insurer, and the reasonableness of the proposed attorney fee, which appears to exceed statutory guidelines. The applicant's attorney must justify the $1.7 million fee based on specific factors.

Compromise and ReleaseStructured SettlementPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentAttorney FeeAnnuityCost of Living AdjustmentExcess Carrier
References
1
Case No. VNO 0297831
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

ANTONIE TUR vs. EL POLLO LOCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted reconsideration of the judge's prior decision in the case of *Antonie Tur vs. El Pollo Loco*. The WCAB rescinded the judge's decision and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. This action is not a final determination of the case's merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration GrantedDecision RescindedFurther ProceedingsWCJ DecisionEl Pollo LocoPermissibly Self-InsuredVNO 0297831Antonie TurAntonine Tur
References
0
Case No. ADJ7711113
Regular
Apr 04, 2012

Lilia Orozco vs. EL POLLO LOCO

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ7711113, involved applicant Lilia Orozco seeking benefits from El Pollo Loco. Orozco claimed injury to her musculoskeletal system, psyche, and other areas. The Board denied Orozco's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision. The WCJ found insufficient evidence that Orozco sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment prior to her termination for misconduct. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings, which were crucial in denying the reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Lilia OrozcoEl Pollo LocoESISMusculoskeletalPsycheInternal
References
1
Case No. ADJ847031
Regular
Dec 10, 2010

CARLOS REYES vs. EL POLLO LOCO, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Carlos Reyes v. El Pollo Loco and Pacific Compensation Insurance Company. The Board adopted the WCJ's report as the basis for the denial. Additionally, the Board corrected a clerical error in the caption of the September 20, 2010 Findings and Order to accurately reflect the defendant's name as "Pacific Compensation Insurance Company." Therefore, the reconsideration is denied, and the caption is corrected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeFindings and OrderClerical ErrorEAMSCaption CorrectionDefendant Name CorrectionIN-HOUSE LITIGATION DEPARTMENTUNIVERSAL ASSIGNED NAME
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01140
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2020

Boody v. El Sol Contr. & Constr. Corp.

Robert Boody, a construction worker for subcontractor Caribe Construction Co., sustained injuries while working on a bridge repair project for general contractor El Sol Contracting and Construction Corporation in Queens. The incident occurred as Boody attempted to move between two barges, alleging his leg was pinned by a tightening mooring line. Boody initiated a personal injury action against El Sol, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), claims which the Supreme Court initially declined to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, granting El Sol's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that El Sol had established the accident resulted from the method of work, not a dangerous premises condition, and that El Sol lacked supervisory control over the work, thereby dismissing the Labor Law claims against them.

Construction accidentLabor Lawsummary judgmentpremises liabilitysupervisory controlsubcontractorgeneral contractorappellate decisionpersonal injuryworkplace safety
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 1999

Prass v. Viva Loco of 110, Inc.

The plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff Frank Prass, a mechanic working for United Ranger, Inc. at a worksite leased by Viva Loco of 110, Inc., was injured when an unsecured ladder, missing rubber pads, slipped. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, citing a question of fact regarding Viva Loco's role as an agent of the owner or contractor. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding sufficient proof that Viva Loco was a contractor, owner, or agent due to its president's substantial involvement and authority at the worksite. The court concluded that the plaintiff's evidence of injury from an unsecured ladder, proximately caused by a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation, established a prima facie case. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and the matter was remitted for a trial on damages.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction AccidentWorksite SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStrict LiabilityContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityAgent Liability
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03108 [238 AD3d 1393]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Matter of Solomon-El (Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Norma Solomon-El was terminated from her employment as a direct care healthcare worker after failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, having had her request for a religious exemption denied. She was subsequently disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits by the Department of Labor, a decision upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Although the Board's initial July 29, 2022 decision was later rescinded and replaced by a December 5, 2023 decision (which again upheld the disqualification, finding no sincerely held religious beliefs), Solomon-El's appeal was solely from the July 2022 decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed her appeal as moot due to the rescinded decision and because she abandoned any challenge to the superseding December 2023 decision by failing to file an updated brief. The court also noted that, even on the merits, substantial evidence would support the Board's December 2023 determination.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary SeparationGood CauseCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateReligious ExemptionAppeal Board DecisionMoot AppealAbandoned AppealSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. ADJ665971
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

ANTONIE TUR vs. EL POLLO LOCO

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify a prior award of benefits. Although the defendant timely paid the principal award, they failed to pay post-award interest as required by Labor Code Section 5800. The Board found this failure was not unreasonable, thus denying penalties. However, they amended the original award to explicitly order the defendant to pay post-award interest on both the applicant's and attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings and OrderStipulated AwardLabor Code Section 5800Labor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5Petition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationPost Award InterestKoszdin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. ADJ9660298
Regular
Mar 01, 2017

ZOILA DELGADO vs. EL POLLO LOCO, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case concerns a defendant's petition for removal after a Workers' Compensation Judge denied their request for a replacement Qualified Medical Examiner (QME). The defendant alleged the applicant violated Labor Code section 4062.3 by improperly sending medical records to the QME, which the parties had agreed should be withheld. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the WCJ's decision was not based on admitted evidence and lacked an Opinion on Decision. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings before a new WCJ.

Petition for RemovalReplacement PQME panelLabor Code section 4062.3improperly sent medical recordsQualified Medical ExaminerWCJMinute Orderrescindedreturned to trial leveladmitted evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ13030119
Regular
Apr 28, 2023

MARIA YESENIA JARAMILLO JIMENEZ vs. EL POLLO LOCO, TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE administered by AMTRUST

Lien claimant Nogales Psychological Counseling appealed an administrative law judge's decision disallowing its lien for services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the matter. Subsequently, the parties entered into a stipulation, agreeing to settle the lien claim for $6,500.00. The Board rescinded the original decision and approved the stipulation as the final resolution of the dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJDisallowed LienStipulationSettlementRescindedApproved
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 96 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational