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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ7537423
Regular
Feb 20, 2014

Gregory Landry vs. Arizona Wranglers, Detroit Lions, Chicago Blitz, The North River Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Gregory Landry's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on January 6, 2014, which was more than the 20-day statutory limit after the WCJ's decision was served on December 10, 2013. Because the decision was personally served, no mailing extension applied. Therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyLabor Code section 5903JurisdictionalServiceMailing ExtensionWCJ's decisionDismissedAppeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tokyo Electron Arizona, Inc. v. Discreet Industries Corp.

This order addresses the plaintiff Tokyo Electron Arizona's (TAZ) application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs against defendants Discreet Industries and Ovadia Meron (Discreet), pursuant to Federal Rule 37. The court determines the appropriate award by assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended, applying the lodestar method. While acknowledging the high caliber of work, the court reduced Mr. Haug's hourly rate and applied a 10% overall reduction to the billed hours to account for potential overlap. Additionally, the court found TAZ's copying and transcript costs reasonable and partially awarded costs for a computer-generated Power Point presentation. Ultimately, TAZ was awarded $55,751.79 in fees and $5386.19 in costs, totaling $61,137.98.

Attorney's FeesCostsDiscovery SanctionsFederal Rule 37Lodestar MethodHourly RatesReasonable HoursEastern District of New YorkSouthern District of New YorkWork Product Doctrine
References
26
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Excelsior Designs, Inc. v. Sheres

Excelsior Designs, Inc., a New York-based furniture distributor, sued Gregory Sheres, an Arizona resident and owner of Sheres Studio, Inc., for defamation, tortious interference with contractual relations, and unfair competition. Excelsior alleged that Sheres sent letters to its customers, accusing Excelsior of infringing on his furniture designs. Sheres filed a motion to transfer venue from the Eastern District of New York to the District of Arizona. The court denied the motion, finding that neither the convenience of witnesses nor access to evidence clearly favored either venue. The court also emphasized the plaintiff's choice of forum, concluding that Sheres had not met the burden to justify a transfer.

Venue TransferDefamationTortious InterferenceUnfair CompetitionIntellectual Property RightsMotion to TransferDistrict CourtCivil ProcedureForum Non ConveniensInterlocutory Motion
References
23
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04906 [233 AD3d 79]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2024

Matter of Fein v. Langer

This case addresses a dispute between Ariel Fein and Irving Langer concerning investments in skilled nursing facilities and the enforcement of arbitration clauses. Langer initiated an action in Arizona state court, but Fein successfully moved in New York to compel arbitration and enjoin the Arizona proceedings. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding Langer judicially estopped by his prior stance in similar litigation to compel arbitration. The court held that the 2016 operating agreements’ broad arbitration provisions, including for Beth Din arbitration, remained effective and provided jurisdiction for the New York court to compel arbitration, rejecting Langer’s arguments of frustration of purpose and public policy.

Judicial EstoppelArbitration AgreementForum Selection ClausePreliminary InjunctionOperating AgreementLLC DisputeBeth DinContract InterpretationAppellate ReviewFraud Allegations
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 29 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