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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07224 [165 AD3d 1558]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

Healthcare Professionals Ins. Co. v. Parentis

This case involves an appeal regarding a declaratory judgment action initiated by Healthcare Professionals Insurance Company (HPI) against Michael A. Parentis and others. The dispute arises from a prior medical malpractice verdict against Parentis totaling $8.6 million, which exceeded his combined $2.3 million primary and excess insurance policies from Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC) and HPI. Parentis alleged bad faith against both insurers for failing to settle the underlying action within policy limits. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to HPI and MLMIC, dismissing Parentis' bad faith claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether both HPI and MLMIC acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations, especially during jury deliberations.

Insurance LawBad Faith Insurance ClaimMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSettlement NegotiationsExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceJury DeliberationsDuty to Settle
References
16
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. 13-23-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

Esmeralda Gonzalez v. CS Auto, LTD and Loco Management Company, L.L.C.

Esmeralda Gonzalez sued CS Auto, LTD and LoCo Management Company, L.L.C. (South Texas Buick GMC) for the wrongful death of Leonzo Gonzalez, who contracted COVID-19 while employed by them. Esmeralda alleged premises liability, negligent conduct, general negligence, negligence per se, and wrongful death, claiming the company failed to implement safety protocols during the pandemic. The trial court dismissed her claims under the Texas Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA), finding her expert report insufficient to establish causation. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the expert report provided only speculative conclusions and failed to offer a factual and scientific basis for the assertion that the employer's actions caused Leonzo's COVID-19 infection and death, thus not satisfying the statutory requirements.

Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA)COVID-19 LiabilityWrongful DeathExpert Report SufficiencyCausation in LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeEmployer NegligenceWorkplace ExposureMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Davis

This case concerns a negligence action filed by Betty Jo Miller, individually and on behalf of her infant son Thomas Miller, following injuries sustained in an automobile collision. The infant was a passenger in a car driven by defendant James Sheldon, which collided with another vehicle. Sheldon, who was the infant's foster parent, raised an affirmative defense of in loco parentis to claim immunity from negligence liability. The court examined whether foster parents, who are compensated by a social welfare department and provide care, but not financial support, can establish an in loco parentis relationship. Ultimately, the court found that financial responsibility is a prerequisite for such a relationship and granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Sheldon's affirmative defense.

In Loco Parentis DoctrineFoster Parent LiabilityParental ImmunityNegligence ActionPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentAffirmative Defense DismissalCPLR 3211 MotionFinancial Support RequirementSocial Welfare Department Involvement
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Waterville Central School District

A 19-year-old student, injured while operating a radial arm saw during a work-study program, sued Waterville School and BOCES for alleged negligence in supervision and providing a safe environment. The student, who received workers' compensation benefits for his injury, was beyond the age of majority and mandatory school attendance when the accident occurred. The defendants sought summary judgment, contending they had no 'loco parentis' duty and that their actions were not the proximate cause of the injury. The court, applying a 'reasonable care' standard, found no breach of duty by the defendants, noting the plaintiff's adult status and the job-related nature of the accident. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to the defendants, and the complaint was dismissed.

work-study program injuryschool negligenceBOCES liabilitysupervision dutyin loco parentis doctrineage of majority defenseproximate causesummary judgment grantededucational institution liabilityvocational training safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert J.

The Commissioner of Oneida County Department of Social Services initiated a child abuse proceeding against a respondent, alleging he sexually abused his grandson while providing child care. The central legal issue was whether the respondent, the child's grandfather providing care outside the parental home, qualified as a 'person legally responsible' under Family Court Act § 1012 (a) and (g). The Family Court denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, finding he fit the definition. The appellate court affirmed this order. Justice Davis dissented, arguing that child care providers, including grandparents, performing services outside the household are not 'legally responsible' within the meaning of Article 10, which he believes is intended for parents or those acting in loco parentis within a family context.

Child AbuseFamily LawFamily Court ActStatutory InterpretationChild Care ProviderGrandparentAppellate ReviewLegal ResponsibilityDissenting OpinionOneida County
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 15 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