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. ADJ7337820
Regular
Apr 07, 2014

JOHN BOOTY vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, PMA GROUP, Arizona Cardinals, Fairmont Premier Insurance/Zenith Insurance Company

The applicant, a professional football player, claimed cumulative industrial injury against multiple NFL teams, including the New York Giants and the Arizona Cardinals. The applicant requested to dismiss the Arizona Cardinals with prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the dismissal to be "without prejudice." This preserves the New York Giants' potential right to seek contribution from the Cardinals should they be found liable for benefits. The Board affirmed the applicant's right to choose which defendants to litigate against.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Party DefendantsCumulative InjuryProfessional Football PlayerNational Football LeagueJurisdictionLiabilityDate of InjuryCompromise & Release Agreement
References
1
Case No. ADJ4519826 (AHM 0143791)
Regular
Oct 19, 2011

DEMAR MARTAY JENKINS vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, DALLAS COWBOYS, ARIZONA RATTLERS, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision finding California jurisdiction over the applicant's claim against the Arizona Rattlers. The Board found that the contract of hire was not made in California, as the applicant signed the agreement in Arizona and retained the ability to reject it. Therefore, California lacks jurisdiction over the claim against the Arizona Rattlers, and the applicant will take nothing from this defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardContract of HireJurisdictionArizona RattlersSCF ArizonaAvizent AnaheimWCJLabor Code Section 5305Labor Code Section 3600.5(a)Laeng v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2003

Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen

Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. (Cardinal) appealed the denial of a temporary injunction sought to enforce a non-competition covenant and prevent unfair competition by its former employee, Jay Bowen. Bowen, a former scheduler, joined a competing firm, CompleteRx, after leaving Cardinal, prompting Cardinal's lawsuit alleging breach of covenants and misappropriation of trade secrets. The trial court denied the injunction without stating reasons, leading Cardinal to argue error based on irreparable injury or the inapplicability of such a requirement under the Covenants Not to Compete Act or the 'inevitable disclosure' doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Cardinal failed to prove irreparable injury and clarifying that the Covenants Not to Compete Act governs final remedies, not preliminary relief, thus requiring proof of irreparable injury for a temporary injunction. The court also declined to adopt or apply the 'inevitable disclosure' doctrine under the circumstances.

Non-competition CovenantTemporary InjunctionTrade SecretsUnfair CompetitionIrreparable InjuryAdequate Legal RemedyCovenants Not to Compete ActInevitable Disclosure DoctrineEmployment AgreementBreach of Contract
References
97
Case No. ADJ4115739 (VNO 0487593)
Regular

ZACH WALZ vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS; RISK ENTERPRISE 2314 BREA

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, concerning applicant Zach Walz against defendants Arizona Cardinals and Risk Enterprise, resulted in an order granting a petition for reconsideration. All future case-related communications are to be directed to the Commissioners' Office in San Francisco, pending the issuance of a Decision After Reconsideration. The order was dated and filed on October 11, 2001.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationCommissioners' OfficeADJ4115739VNO 0487593VNO 0487351VNO 0487591VNO 0487592Arizona Cardinals
References
0
Case No. ADJ7233546
Regular
Apr 12, 2013

REGINALD SWINTON vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, LLC, DALLAS COWBOYS, TRAVELERS, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, PSI

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision affirms a prior administrative law judge's finding in the case of Reginald Swinton. The Board adopted the judge's report and recommendation without further elaboration. Therefore, the original May 31, 2012, Findings and Order remain in effect. The specific details of the claim against the Arizona Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, and Seattle Seahawks were not detailed in this excerpt.

Reginald SwintonArizona CardinalsGreat Divide Insurance CompanyBerkley Specialty Underwriting ManagersDallas CowboysTravelersSeattle SeahawksPSIADJ7233546Anaheim District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ8481999
Regular
Jan 21, 2020

Benjamin Claxton vs. Arizona Cardinals, Great Divide Insurance Company, administered by Berkley Specialty Underwriting Managers, Oakland Raiders, Ace American Insurance, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted reconsideration for Benjamin Claxton's case against the Arizona Cardinals and Oakland Raiders. This decision was made after an initial review of the record and is intended to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB aims to issue a just and reasoned decision after this thorough examination. Pending the decision after reconsideration, all related communications must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners, not with any district office or through EAMS.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardArizona CardinalsGreat Divide Insurance CompanyBerkley Specialty Underwriting ManagersOakland RaidersAce American InsuranceESISOpinion and OrderGranting Petition
References
1
Case No. 2015-08-0218
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2015

McCaffery v. Cardinal Logistics

The employee, a truck driver named James McCaffery, suffered multiple injuries when his truck rolled over after he sneezed and lost control. The trial judge initially awarded medical and temporary disability benefits, determining that the injuries likely arose primarily out of his employment. The employer, Cardinal Logistics, appealed, asserting defenses such as idiopathic condition, act of God, and the imported risk doctrine. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's award of benefits, concluding that driving the truck constituted an employment hazard directly linked to the injuries, and denied both parties' motions regarding frivolous appeal and untimely brief.

Workers' CompensationTruck Driver InjuryIdiopathic ConditionAct of God DefenseImported Risk DoctrineMotor Vehicle AccidentTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsAppellate ReviewCompensability
References
9
Case No. ADJ7460656
En Banc
Jan 15, 2013

DENNIS MCKINLEY vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, declining to exercise jurisdiction over a cumulative injury claim due to a reasonable mandatory forum selection clause in the employment contract specifying Arizona as the forum, coupled with the applicant's limited connection to California.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDEN BANCCUMULATIVE INJURYPROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYERARIZONA CARDINALSTRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANYFORUM SELECTION CLAUSEMANDATORY FORUMLIMITED CONNECTIONEMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams

This case addresses allegations of email snooping within the nuclear pharmacy industry, where plaintiff Cardinal Health 414, Inc. sued former employees Daniel Adams and Allen B. Townsend along with Music City Nuclear Pharmacy. Adams allegedly accessed a former co-worker's email account after leaving Cardinal and shared confidential information, including customer data and pricing, with Townsend, who subsequently started a competing business. Cardinal sought damages for business losses, claiming violations of federal and Tennessee statutes concerning electronic communications and trade secrets. The court rendered decisions on several cross-motions for summary judgment, granting some claims and denying others, while also addressing affirmative defenses. Ultimately, the court found Adams liable for an SCA violation and granted summary judgment against defendants on wiretap and civil conspiracy claims, but allowed TPCCA and TUTSA claims to proceed to trial.

E-mail snoopingTrade secrets misappropriationComputer fraudElectronic communications privacyWiretap ActSummary judgmentAffirmative defensesLachesIllegalityAntitrust
References
34
Case No. 2014-01-0016
Regular Panel Decision

Careathers, Will v. Cardin Forest Products, LLC

Will Careathers, an employee of Cardin Forest Products, LLC, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits after reporting a midsection injury while lifting wood on August 11, 2014. He was referred to Dr. Charles R. Adcock, who diagnosed a small hiatal hernia. A post-accident drug test was positive for Oxycodone and Oxymorphone, leading Cardin to deny the claim. Careathers contended the medication was prescribed and that Cardin failed to provide a panel of physicians. Judge Thomas Wyatt denied Careathers' request, finding he failed to establish by medical expert opinion that his hiatal hernia arose primarily out of employment, as required by the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The Court also found that Careathers accepted Dr. Adcock as his treating physician instead of waiting for a panel, thus denying his request for a new panel.

Workers' CompensationHiatal HerniaDrug TestCausationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityPanel of PhysiciansExpedited HearingTennessee LawEmployer Liability
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 64 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