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. ADJ18852673
Regular
Jul 14, 2025

Harrison P. Wenson vs. Los Angeles Angels, Ace American Insurance Company/Chubb

Applicant Harrison P. Wenson sought reconsideration of a WCJ's April 14, 2025, Findings of Fact and Order, which found no California subject matter jurisdiction over his cumulative trauma claim. Wenson argued jurisdiction based on Labor Code section 3600.5(d) exceptions, the defendant being a California employer, and his employment with a California-based team. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further study the jurisdictional issue, deferring a final decision after reconsideration.

Cumulative traumaSubject matter jurisdictionProfessional athleteLabor Code section 3600.5(d)Employer controlCalifornia-based teamContract of hireDuty daysSignificant connectionNexus
References
Case No. ADJ10779733
Regular
Feb 26, 2020

THOMAS WILSON vs. FLORIDA MARLINS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a professional athlete's workers' compensation claim where the central issue is whether California jurisdiction is precluded by Labor Code sections 3600.5(c) and (d) concerning out-of-state athletes. The Board found these exemptions inapplicable because the applicant had multiple California contracts of hire during his cumulative trauma injury period, aligning with California's general jurisdictional rules. The Board interpreted the intent of the statutory amendments to be the limitation of claims by out-of-state athletes with minimal California contacts, not those with established hire in the state. Therefore, the applicant's claim may proceed in California.

Labor Code Section 3600.5Professional Athlete ExceptionCumulative TraumaContract of HireJurisdictionOut-of-State EmployersCalifornia-Based TeamDuty DaysTemporary WorkLegislative Intent
References
Case No. ADJ9223382
Regular
Jul 06, 2015

MICHAEL NEU vs. LOS ANGELES DODGERS, OAKLAND ATHLETICS, FLORIDA MARLINS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Los Angeles Dodgers' petition for reconsideration, affirming an earlier award for the applicant. The Board found the Dodgers, as a California-based team, were not exempt from notice requirements regarding workers' compensation rights. Furthermore, the statute of limitations was tolled because the Dodgers failed to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his rights more than one year before filing his claim. Consequently, the applicant's claim for industrial injury to his neck and right shoulder was upheld.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMichael NeuLos Angeles DodgersOakland AthleticsFlorida MarlinsAce American Insurance CompanyADJ9223382industrial injuryneckright shoulder
References
Case No. ADJ6426842
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

DAN FIKE vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS/CLEVELAND BROWNS

This case concerns a claim for cumulative industrial injury by a professional football player against his former employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision that California lacked jurisdiction over the claim. This was based on Labor Code section 3600.5(b), which exempts employees hired outside California and temporarily working within the state, provided the employer has extraterritorial coverage with another state that reciprocally exempts California. The employer, the Browns, successfully demonstrated these conditions were met under Ohio law.

Labor Code section 3600.5extraterritorial provisionsregularly employedtemporarily in Californiahired outside of Californiaself-insured employerOhio workers' compensation lawsCalifornia workers' compensation lawcumulative industrial injuryprofessional football player
References
Case No. ADJ9314776
Regular
May 16, 2018

Ken Sutton vs. San Jose Sharks, Federal Insurance Company

This case involves a professional hockey player's cumulative trauma claim against the San Jose Sharks. The employer sought exemption from California workers' compensation jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(d), arguing the player's last employer, the Ingolstadt Panthers, was exempt. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior finding, ruling that the Ingolstadt Panthers were not exempt under section 3600.5(c) as the player did not work temporarily in California for them. Consequently, the claim is not exempt under section 3600.5(d), and the WCAB retains jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Jose SharksFederal Insurance Companycumulative trauma claimLabor Code section 3600.5(d)professional athleteIngolstadt Pantherssubject matter jurisdictionvocational rehabilitationduty days
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ916063
Regular
Dec 24, 2010

TERRY SCUDDER vs. VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC., SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant Verizon California, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition. This action was taken due to the need for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications related to this matter should be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationOPINION AND ORDERVERIZON CALIFORNIASEDGWICK CMSSTATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSFACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUESJUST AND REASONED DECISIONFURTHER PROCEEDINGSDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ8552834
Regular
Aug 24, 2015

JOHN SKORUPAN vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, ACE USA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify its jurisdiction over applicant John Skorupan's cumulative industrial injury claim against the New York Giants. The WCAB affirmed the administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that while the WCAB has personal jurisdiction, California lacks a legitimate and substantial interest to exercise jurisdiction over the claim, citing the *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)* precedent. This decision hinges on the applicant's minimal California contacts (5 games out of 141 played) not establishing a sufficient connection for due process. Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that the applicant's more than de minimis exposure in California and the state's public policy of protecting injured workers should support jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardcumulative industrial injuryprofessional athleteoutside linebackerspecial teamsFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)de minimis California contactsconstitutional due processPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ8270854
Regular
Mar 05, 2020

CAROLINA GARCIA vs. SUPERIOR GROCERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE INS. CO., PATRIOT RISK, ULLICO INS. CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Carolina Garcia's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on January 21, 2020, which was more than 25 days after the WCJ's November 13, 2019 decision. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of service, and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to consider untimely petitions. If timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCJ DecisionMailing Date vs. Filing DateCalifornia Labor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsAdministrative Law JudgeLiquidation
References
Case No. ADJ2681583 (MON 0239411)
Regular
May 01, 2012

GUILLERMINA GONZALEZ vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JOBBERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE (CIGA) by BROADSPIRE, for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE, in liquidation

In *Gonzalez v. Southern California Jobbers*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. The Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. This order signifies the matter is not yet finalized on its merits.

Reconsideration OrderRescindedFurther ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGABroadspireLiquidationSouthern California Jobbers
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,083 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