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. ADJ8613780
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

GLENN PARKER vs. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TIG/FAIRMONT PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, NEW YORK GIANTS, GULF/TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, BUFFALO BILLS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether California has sufficient jurisdiction to hear a workers' compensation claim for cumulative injury filed by a former professional football player. The applicant played 12 out of 176 total games in California, which the majority found to be a de minimis contact insufficient for California to assert jurisdiction due to due process concerns, citing the *Johnson* case. The Board affirmed the trial judge's decision to deny jurisdiction, while also correcting a clerical error regarding the insurer. A dissenting commissioner argued that California's interest in protecting workers injured within the state is substantial and that the applicant's contacts were not de minimis.

WCABcumulative industrial injuryprofessional athletede minimis California contactsdue processsubject matter jurisdictionFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)constitutional due processextraterritorial provisionsstatutory exemption
References
14
Case No. ADJ7469776
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

PAUL PALMER vs. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns whether California workers' compensation jurisdiction applies to an out-of-state professional football player's cumulative injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant's minimal contact with California (5 out of 62 games) did not establish a sufficient connection for due process under *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*. The majority found that California lacked a legitimate and substantial interest in adjudicating the claim, deeming the applicant's contact "de minimis." Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that California has a substantial interest in injured workers and that the applicant's contact was more than de minimis, thus supporting WCAB jurisdiction.

WCABPaul PalmerKansas City ChiefsTravelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaADJ7469776Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeWCJFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)
References
2
Case No. ADJ8691809
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

NICOLE BORAGNO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY CHOWCHILLA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves Nicole Boragno's workers' compensation claim against the State of California, CDCR. The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying the admission of a supplemental medical report. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the supplemental report inadmissible. This was because discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference, and the defendant failed to establish good cause for introducing evidence not previously disclosed. The WCJ noted there was no change in circumstances to warrant the late-filed report, distinguishing it from precedent that allows such reports.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationmandatory settlement conferencediscovery closureLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)good causesupplemental reportPQMEapportionmenttimeliness
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. ADJ 8937991
Regular
May 23, 2017

ANTONIO PIERCE vs. WASHINGTON REDSKINS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE AND TRAVELERS, NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS, INC., GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has jurisdiction over a professional football player's cumulative injury claim. The applicant asserts he was hired in California by the Washington Redskins and New York Football Giants, Inc., triggering WCAB jurisdiction. Defendants argued against jurisdiction, citing limited California contacts and employment contracts specifying other state laws. The WCAB affirmed the judge's finding of jurisdiction, holding that the applicant's hiring in California is sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5 and 5305, irrespective of other contacts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAntonio PierceWashington RedskinsACE American InsuranceTravelersNew York Football GiantsGreat Divide Insurance Companyjurisdictioncontract of hireFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)
References
30
Case No. ADJ1888124 (SAL 0111884) ADJ3322590 (SAL 0079903)
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

MARIA NUNEZ vs. MANN PACKING COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation; STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an applicant's workers' compensation claims after Fremont Compensation Insurance Company became insolvent. CIGA argued it should be relieved of liability because the State of California, as the applicant's employer through IHSS, constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code Section 1063.1. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the State of California does not qualify as "other insurance" under the relevant statutes. This distinction is based on the State not being required to obtain workers' compensation insurance or a certificate of self-insurance like private or other public employers.

CIGAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyliquidationlegally uninsuredother insuranceInsurance Code Section 1063.1covered claimsIn-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)statutory limitationsself-insurance
References
5
Case No. ADJ17068636
Regular
May 19, 2025

KATHLEEN ZEPEDA vs. CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION

Applicant Kathleen Zepeda claimed injury to her abdomen, back, and lower extremities while employed by California Baptist University. Lien claimant Medland Medical Group and defendant California Baptist University both sought reconsideration of a February 19, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A). The F&A entitled Medland Medical Group to payment for medical-legal costs related to an April 26, 2023 report but did not find an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, and affirmed the F&A with an amendment to explicitly state that the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of establishing injury AOE/COE.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical-Legal ReportPrimary Treating PhysicianInjury AOE/COESubstantial EvidenceContested ClaimMedical Treatment Costs
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spherenomics Global Contact Centers v. Vcustomer Corp.

Plaintiff Spherenomics Global Contact Centers sued defendant vCustomer Corporation for breach of a non-solicitation agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Spherenomics, a provider of outsourced call-center services, alleged that VCC, its subcontractor, improperly solicited and secured a long-term contract with their mutual client, Fingerhut, in violation of their November 2002 agreement. While the court found that VCC indeed breached the non-solicitation provision, it ultimately ruled in favor of VCC. The court concluded that Spherenomics failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that VCC's breach directly caused Spherenomics to suffer damages, specifically lost profits, deeming such claims too speculative to be recoverable under New York contract law or equitable theories.

Breach of ContractNon-Solicitation AgreementLost ProfitsDamagesCausationPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentContract LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
32
Case No. ADJ4332905 (SAL 0109881)
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

JESUS RODRIGUEZ vs. BUD OF CALIFORNIA

California Physicians Network (CPN) and its representative, Dennise Mejia, were sanctioned $2,500.00 jointly and severally for filing a frivolous and untimely petition for reconsideration that lacked proper verification and contained erroneous facts. The Board dismissed their reconsideration request because it did not challenge a final order and was procedurally deficient. CPN and Mejia failed to respond to the Board's notice of intent to impose sanctions. The defendant's claim for additional trial-level costs and attorney's fees was deferred to the workers' compensation administrative law judge for initial determination.

ADJ4332905SAL 0109881Opinion and Decision After RemovalSanctionCalifornia Physicians NetworkDennise MejiaLien ClaimantLabor Code section 5813(a)Appeals Board Rule 10561Frivolous
References
6
Case No. ADJ2842535
Regular
May 27, 2011

JANE HUTZELL vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA at BERKELEY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration by applicant Jane Hutzell against the University of California at Berkeley. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report. The judge found that vocational experts' opinions did not adequately address the impact of medical apportionment or the specifics of part-time work availability on the overall industrial disability rating. Therefore, the judge's rating, based on established schedules, was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVocational ExpertsLumbar Spine ConditionCumulative TraumaNon-Industrial FactorsObesityApportionmentBilateral Carpal Tunnel SyndromeBilateral Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,657 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