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. ADJ1360622 (ANA 0407664)
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

LUCIUS SANFORD vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS\/CLEVELAND BROWNS, BUFFALO BILLS

This case concerns an applicant's workers' compensation claim against the Cleveland Browns for injuries sustained as a professional football player. The Appeals Board, reconsidering a prior award, determined that the Browns and the applicant were exempt from California workers' compensation jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(b). This exemption applies when an employee is hired outside of California, temporarily works within the state, and the employer provides coverage under another state's laws that reciprocally exempts such arrangements. Consequently, the prior award was rescinded, and the Browns were dismissed as a defendant, with the case returned for further proceedings.

WCABADJ1360622Lucius SanfordBaltimore RavensCleveland BrownsBuffalo BillsLabor Code Section 3600.5(b)Findings And AwardWCJpermanent disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ6836629
Regular
Oct 01, 2013

EVERSON WALLS vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS fka CLEVELAND BROWNS, NEW YORK GIANTS, PMA INSURANCE GROUP c/o GALLAGHER BASSETT and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA c/o CHARTIS CLAIMS INC., DALLAS COWBOYS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Everson Walls' workers' compensation claim against the Cleveland Browns (now Baltimore Ravens) for an injury sustained while playing professional football. The Board found that Walls was only temporarily employed in California and that the Browns, as a self-insured Ohio employer, provided coverage under Ohio law, which reciprocates California's extraterritorial provisions. Consequently, the Browns are exempted from California workers' compensation law under Labor Code §3600.5(b), and are therefore dismissed from the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code §3600.5(b)National Football LeagueNFLProfessional Football PlayerCumulative Trauma InjuryTemporary Employee ExemptionExtraterritorial CoverageOhio Bureau of Workers' CompensationSelf-Insured Employer
References
9
Case No. ADJ7198621
Regular
Jan 18, 2012

Sultan McCullough vs. Cleveland Browns, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Cleveland Browns' petition for reconsideration as untimely. The Browns failed to file their petition within the 25-day deadline applicable to their California-based attorneys after the initial award was issued on December 19, 2011. Although the petition was untimely, the WCAB indicated that it would have been denied on the merits as well. The WCAB found sufficient evidence to establish subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that applicant Sultan McCullough likely signed his contract in California, his home address.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSubject Matter JurisdictionContract of HireTimelinessLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsProof of ServiceAdministrative Law JudgeFindings and Award
References
4
Case No. ADJ14657802
Regular
Sep 19, 2022

STEVE LAUTER vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS FKA CLEVELAND BROWNS, PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED, ADMINISTERED BY BERKLEY ENTERTAINMENT, SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FOR FREMONT INSURANCE, IN LIQUIDATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior ruling and amended a finding of fact. The Board affirmed that California lacked personal jurisdiction over the Baltimore Ravens (formerly Cleveland Browns) for applicant's claimed injuries. The decision found no evidence of a contract formed in California and that the applicant's activities with the Browns, including games played in California, occurred after his release and were not connected to his claimed injury. The Board also declined to disturb the WCJ's reliance on pre-2005 medical-legal procedures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMinimum ContactsSpecial AppearanceContract of HireOffer and AcceptanceOral ContractForum StateLabor Code Section 4062
References
22
Case No. ADJ8022272
Regular
Jan 17, 2014

DICK AMBROSE vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS/CLEVELAND BROWNS

This case concerns Dick Ambrose's workers' compensation claim against the Baltimore Ravens/Cleveland Browns. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that California's workers' compensation jurisdiction was exempt under Labor Code Section 3600.5(b) because the applicant was only temporarily in California and the employer provided coverage under Ohio law. The Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, largely adopting the ALJ's reasoning regarding the admissibility of evidence and the application of Section 3600.5(b). Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that the applicant's routine work in California over a decade made his presence more than temporary, and also raised concerns about Ohio's reciprocal protections and the employer's self-insurance compliance.

Labor Code Section 3600.5(b)exemption from California jurisdictiontemporary presenceextraterritorial provisionsOhio Revised Codeself-insurancemandatory settlement conferencecumulative injuryprofessional football playeradministrative law judge
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2015

Browne v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Kenneth Owen Browne sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, denying his claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Browne alleged disability since December 2007 due to conditions like degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and carpal tunnel syndrome. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously found Browne not disabled, concluding he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court also addressed and rejected Browne's arguments regarding the ALJ's application of the treating physician rule, and alleged failures to consider his obesity and medication side effects.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActJudicial reviewResidual functional capacityTreating physician ruleSubstantial evidenceAdministrative Law JudgeMedical evidenceObesityMedication side effects
References
28
Case No. ADJ6696775, ADJ7402305
Regular
Apr 27, 2012

ANDRICK COREY JACKSON vs. DENVER BRONCOS AND CLEVELAND BROWNS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a February 13, 2012 Findings and Award at the request of defendant Cleveland Browns. This action was taken due to statutory time constraints and a preliminary review indicating a need for further study of factual and legal issues. The Board seeks a complete understanding of the record to issue a just decision. Pending a Decision After Reconsideration, all filings must be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners' office, not to district offices or through e-filing.

ADJ6696775ADJ7402305WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDANDRICK COREY JACKSONDENVER BRONCOSCLEVELAND BROWNSPermissibly Self-InsuredOPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Artus

Plaintiff Nathan Brown, a New York State prison inmate, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unlawful retaliation and cruel and unusual punishment against several Department of Correctional Services employees, including defendants Dale Artus and R.J. Minogue. The claims arose from an alleged assault following Brown's complaint against a corrections officer. Defendants Artus and Minogue moved for partial summary judgment, asserting lack of personal involvement and qualified immunity, while Brown cross-moved for Rule 11 sanctions. The District Court, adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, granted partial summary judgment by dismissing the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Artus due to insufficient evidence of personal involvement. However, the motion was otherwise denied, preserving the Eighth Amendment claims against both defendants and the retaliation claim against Minogue, as triable issues of fact remained. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions was also denied.

Civil Rights ActionInmate RetaliationEighth Amendment ViolationCruel and Unusual PunishmentQualified Immunity DefensePartial Summary JudgmentRule 11 SanctionsSupervisory LiabilityFirst Amendment ClaimPrison Conditions
References
66
Case No. CV 86-1336
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1987

Brown v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Donald Brown, a Port Authority Police lieutenant, initiated litigation against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and several officials. Brown alleged that he faced disciplinary action, including a counseling memorandum, after circulating a memo that criticized the defendants' inadequate anti-terrorist preparations at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He claimed these actions violated his First Amendment right to free speech and caused him severe psychological stress. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Brown's speech was not a matter of public concern under established Supreme Court precedents like Pickering and Connick. Brown cross-moved for summary judgment. The Court denied both motions, finding that the subject of Brown's memorandum, concerning public safety at a major international airport, could be considered a matter of public concern. Furthermore, the Court noted that disputed material facts, such as the actual impact of the memorandum on office harmony and discipline, precluded granting summary judgment to the plaintiff.

First AmendmentPublic Employee SpeechRetaliationMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentPolice DepartmentTerrorism PreparednessWhistleblower ProtectionFreedom of SpeechPort Authority
References
13
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06422 [222 AD3d 1147]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Brown v. Buffalo Transp., Inc.

Claimant Tara Brown sought workers' compensation benefits after a motor vehicle accident, identifying Buffalo Transportation, Inc. as her employer. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found Brown was an employee of Buffalo Transportation and that State National Insurance Company, as the carrier for Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. (SPLI), was responsible for coverage. However, the Board later amended its decision, affirming Brown's employment with Buffalo Transportation but concluding she was not a leased employee covered by SPLI's policy, thus placing the Uninsured Employers' Fund on notice. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's amended decision, upholding the finding that Brown was an employee of Buffalo Transportation and not a leased employee, thereby distinguishing the matter from prior similar cases.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsEmployment RelationshipProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Insurance Coverage DisputesEmployer LiabilityUninsured Employers' FundAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AmendmentMotor Vehicle Accident ClaimStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 276 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