AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

  • Jose Franco claimed he was injured while working for Nelson Meats, Inc., and Larry and Ben, LLC, and sought benefits from the Workers' Compensation Administration. The core issue was whether Franco was an employee of Nelson Meats at the time of his injury.

Procedural History

  • [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

  • Worker-Appellant: Argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred in finding that he was not an employee of Nelson Meats at the time of his injury and that the court's review was unduly deferential to the WCJ's findings.
  • Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Worker-Appellant was an employee of Nelson Meats, Inc., and Larry and Ben, LLC, at the time of his injury.

Disposition

  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s order denying benefits, concluding that the Worker-Appellant was not an employee of Nelson Meats at the time of his injury.

Reasons

  • Per M. Monica Zamora, with Emil J. Kiehne and Daniel J. Gallegos concurring, the court found that the issue was not whether Franco was an independent contractor or an employee, but rather if he was an employee at all at the time of his injury (para 2). The court applied a deferential standard of review to the WCJ's determinations, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the agency decision while considering all evidence presented (paras 3-4). The court was not persuaded by Franco's arguments, emphasizing that the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence are determinations for the trial judge, not the appellate court. The court concluded that the evidence supported the WCJ’s conclusion that Franco was not an employee of Nelson Meats at the time of his injury, and Franco did not point out any factual or legal error in the court's proposed disposition (para 4).
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.