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. 2017 NY Slip Op 05862 [152 AD3d 806]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp.

The plaintiff, Rachina Phillips, sustained personal injuries after boiling water spilled on her right foot while preparing hot foods within the scope of her employment at a Taco Bell restaurant. She initiated an action against Taco Bell Corp. and Yum! Brands, Inc., alleging negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the plaintiff's employer, Taco Bell of America, LLC, was a subsidiary or sister company and that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy, or that they lacked ownership/control over the premises. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, determining that the affidavits submitted by the defendants did not qualify as documentary evidence under CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and failed to conclusively establish a defense or refute the plaintiff's factual allegations for both CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and (7).

Personal InjuryNegligenceCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary EvidenceMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureAlter Ego LiabilityWorkers' Compensation DefensePremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Taco Bell Corp.

This Memorandum and Order addresses an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Penny D. Miller against Taco Bell Corporation, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law. Miller, who has a severe hearing impairment, claimed she was denied a promotion and terminated due to her disability, and subjected to a hostile work environment. The defendant sought summary judgment, which the court granted. The court determined that while a factual dispute existed regarding the extent of Miller's disability, she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she did not formally apply for the promotion, and her termination and alleged lack of communication skills were supported by non-discriminatory reasons related to her interpersonal abilities, not her hearing. Furthermore, the court found her hostile work environment claims to be sporadic and not severe enough to constitute an abusive environment. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed, and state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActADANew York State Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentHearing ImpairmentPretext for DiscriminationPrima Facie Case
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Le Myre v. La Belle

This case involves appeals from two Workers’ Compensation Board decisions. The Board found that the claimant, a 15-year-old groom, suffered a disabling injury within the course of employment and established an employer-employee relationship with Stephen M. La Belle, owner of Steve Belle’s Racing Stable. La Belle contended the claimant was a volunteer, denying any payment. The Board, however, credited the claimant’s testimony regarding the nature of the work, payment, and La Belle's control, finding substantial evidence for an employer-employee relationship. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions.

Employer-Employee DisputeSubstantial Evidence ReviewCredibility AssessmentAppellate AffirmationMinor EmploymentEquine IndustryOccupational InjuryWage Non-Payment ClaimSaratoga CountyBoard Decision Appeal
References
3
Case No. ADJ3362717 (VNO 0348210) ADJ785044 (VNO 0327922)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

JEAN WHITE vs. TACO BELL CORPORATION, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Jean White's workers' compensation claim against Taco Bell Corporation and its insurer, Zurich Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an order denying White's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in its decision.

WCABOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ reportJean WhiteTaco Bell CorporationZurich Insurance CompanyADJ3362717VNO 0348210
References
0
Case No. ADJ7511995
Regular
Apr 13, 2020

Teresa Trejo vs. Yum Brands; doing business as Taco Bell, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case concerns Teresa Trejo's claim for new and further permanent disability stemming from a 2010 industrial injury to her spine and knees while employed by Taco Bell/Yum! Brands. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the trial judge's denial of Trejo's petition to reopen, finding sufficient medical evidence from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) to establish a compensable psychiatric injury. The WCAB returned the matter to the trial level for further development of the record regarding sleep apnea and headaches, and for a new decision on the extent of Trejo's disability.

ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical ExaminerCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryPsychiatric InjuryDepressive DisorderAdjustment Disorder
References
1
Case No. ADJ7973460, ADJ8045282
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

MARIA GUADALUPE VALOIS vs. TACO BELL/YUM! BRANDS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involved a petition for reconsideration by ACE American Insurance Company concerning a workers' compensation award for Maria Guadalupe Valois. The applicant sustained injuries to her knee, shoulder, psyche, and experienced headaches and a sleep disorder from two separate employment periods with Taco Bell. The insurer challenged apportionment of permanent disability, an increase in indemnity, wage calculation, and the admission of physician reports. Ultimately, the parties entered into a Compromise and Release agreement, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board approved after finding it adequate and in the applicant's best interest, rescinding the prior award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSecond Amended Findings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 4658Permanent Partial DisabilityTemporary DisabilityApportionmentMedical TreatmentSleep Disorder
References
0
Case No. ADJ9254420; ADJ9253953
Regular
Mar 05, 2018

LORENA LOPEZ vs. DOLAN FOSTER ENTERPRISES dba TACO BELL, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE CO.

This case involves two workers' compensation claims for cumulative trauma injuries to an applicant's neck, back, arms, and shoulders sustained while working at Taco Bell. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing a due process violation due to the WCJ finding cumulative trauma injuries after parties stipulated to specific injuries. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the WCJ properly amended pleadings to conform to proof based on AME medical reports, and the defendant had ample notice of the potential for cumulative trauma claims, thus not violating due process. The Board also found the AME's use of grip strength for impairment assessment and the lumbar spine impairment category to be consistent with the AMA Guides and supported by substantial evidence.

Cumulative traumaSpecific injuryDue processStipulationAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentGrip strengthWCJWCAB
References
10
Case No. TP 14-00362
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2014

BELL, ELIJAH v. JOHNSON, SOCIAL WORKER

Elijah Bell, proceeding pro se, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination made after a tier II hearing. The hearing found that Bell had violated various inmate rules. The case was transferred from the Supreme Court, Seneca County, to the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department. The Appellate Division ultimately dismissed the proceeding without costs, deeming it moot, referencing Matter of Free v Coombe.

Appellate DivisionJudicial DepartmentCPLR article 78 proceedingMootnessInmate Rules ViolationTier II HearingPro Se RepresentationAttorney GeneralJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
1
Case No. 527101
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2019

Matter of Bell v. Glens Falls Ready Mix Co., Inc.

Walter Bell, a diesel mechanic/driver, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding his schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right arm. Bell sustained work-related injuries requiring surgery and received workers' compensation benefits. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found an 80% SLU, the Board, crediting Dr. Maloney's opinion, determined a 50% SLU of the right shoulder and added 10% for elbow defects, resulting in a 60% SLU of the right arm based on the New York State Guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the guidelines for calculating SLU awards for combined upper extremity injuries.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryShoulder InjuryElbow InjuryMedical EvaluationTreating PhysicianIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Appellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPermanent Impairment Guidelines
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strauss v. Belle Realty Co.

On July 13, 1977, a power failure caused by Consolidated Edison left most of New York City in darkness. Plaintiff, Julius Strauss, a tenant in an apartment building, fell on darkened stairs in a common area while attempting to obtain water, sustaining injuries. He sued his landlord, Belle Realty Company, for negligence in maintaining the stairs and Consolidated Edison for negligence in failing to provide electricity. The central legal question was whether Con Edison owed a duty of care to Strauss, a non-customer regarding the common areas of the building, given his landlord's separate contractual relationship with the utility. The court concluded that, as a matter of public policy concerning a widespread blackout, liability for injuries in a building's common areas should be limited by the contractual relationship. The Appellate Division's decision to dismiss the complaint against Con Edison was affirmed.

Power OutageBlackoutUtility LiabilityDuty of CareContractual RelationshipPrivity of ContractGross NegligencePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityPublic Policy
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 145 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