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. ADJ8128265
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

WILLIAM GARNETT vs. DALLAS BASKETBALL LTD (DALLAS MAVERICKS), INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA/ACE USA, INDIANA PACERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a decision denying jurisdiction over applicant William Garnett's cumulative trauma claim. Garnett, a former professional basketball player, argued he sustained injury while playing for the Dallas Mavericks and Indiana Pacers, with over 20 games played in California. However, the WCAB found Garnett's contacts with California insufficient, deeming the 22 games played as de minimis based on the *Johnson* precedent. The Board concluded that constitutional due process required a sufficient relationship between the injury and the state, which was not met here.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaJurisdictionDe MinimisJohnsonMcKinleyProfessional AthleteNBAIndiana PacersDallas Mavericks
References
5
Case No. ADJ8838881
Regular
Jul 11, 2014

ALEXANDER ENGLISH vs. DALLAS MAVERICKS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for removal filed by the defendants, Dallas Mavericks and Zenith Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was filed on June 18, 2014, which was untimely. The original decision was issued on April 8, 2014, and the petitioner failed to file within the required 20-day period for personal service. The Board clarified that the 20-day deadline, not 25 days, applied, making the petition due by April 28, 2014.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingPersonal Service20-day DeadlineWCJ ReportStrom v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8838881Oakland District OfficeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDALLAS MAVERICKS
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2023

Matter of Madeline M. (Dallas M.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Family Court's finding that the mother, Dallas M., neglected her child, Madeline M. The decision was based on a preponderance of the evidence showing the mother suffers from untreated mental illness, including bipolar disorder, with a history of psychiatric hospitalizations and a failure to comply with mental health treatment recommendations. The court found her continued lack of insight into her condition impaired her ability to care for the child, posing an imminent risk of harm. A negative inference was drawn against the mother for her failure to testify at the hearing.

Child NeglectParental Mental IllnessBipolar DisorderAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionPreponderance of EvidenceNegative InferenceParental FitnessRisk of Harm to ChildChild Welfare
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2008

Dallas v. Roosevelt Union Free School District

Plaintiffs Westley Dallas, a special needs child, and his father, William Dallas, sued the Roosevelt Union Free School District alleging failures in providing an adequate Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for Westley and also for mistreatment and assault by another student. The complaint brought eleven counts, including state law tort claims and federal and state constitutional and statutory claims related to special education. The District filed a motion to dismiss, challenging personal jurisdiction and asserting the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies for their education-related claims. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding service proper, but granted the dismissal of the education-related claims (Counts Six through Eleven) due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA. Furthermore, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law tort claims (Counts One through Five) and dismissed them without prejudice, subsequently closing the case.

Special EducationIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Exhaustion of Administrative RemediesPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissSupplemental JurisdictionIndividualized Education Plan (IEP)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4Rehabilitation Act
References
24
Case No. ADJ7225815
Regular
Jun 27, 2012

MICHAEL BARROW vs. WASHINGTON REDSKINS, DALLAS COWBOYS FOOTBALL CLUB, NEW YORK GIANTS, TENNESSEE TITANS, CAROLINA PANTHERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE administered by BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, LLC, LEGION INSURANCE in liquidation by CIGA, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding that it had jurisdiction over the Dallas Cowboys for applicant Michael Barrow's injury claim. The WCAB determined that while applicant's agent, a California resident, negotiated the contract and communicated acceptance from Los Angeles, this action alone did not establish a "contract of hire" made in California. Crucially, the applicant himself was not in California at the time of acceptance, and the contract required his personal signature to be fully binding. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction over this extraterritorial claim against the Dallas Cowboys.

WCABjurisdictioncontract of hireextraterritorial claimLabor Code 3600.5(a)Labor Code 5305out-of-state injuryprofessional football playeragent authorityoral acceptance
References
13
Case No. ADJ7983986
Regular
Apr 07, 2023

DANIEL NOONAN vs. DALLAS COWBOYS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Dallas Cowboys, in the case of Daniel Noonan. The dismissal is based solely on the fact that the petitioner voluntarily withdrew their petition. Consequently, the WCAB has formally ordered the petition for reconsideration to be dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdjudication NumberVan Nuys District OfficeCommissionerApplicantDefendantService
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kendricks v. Westhab, Inc.

Plaintiff Maverick Kendricks filed an amended complaint alleging employment discrimination based on disability and retaliation against Westhab, Inc., under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Kendricks claimed wrongful termination due to a head injury sustained at work, failure to accommodate his disability, and retaliation for his protests against discriminatory practices. Westhab moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis issued a Report and Recommendation on August 30, 2001, advising that the motion be granted and the complaint dismissed. Judge Marrero adopted this Report and Recommendation in its entirety, concluding that Kendricks failed to sufficiently plead a disability under the ADA or provide enough facts to support a retaliation claim. The court found that Kendricks did not demonstrate a substantial limitation of a major life activity, nor did he adequately show Westhab refused reasonable accommodation or that his protests constituted protected activity.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Retaliation ClaimMotion to DismissFailure to State a ClaimPro Se PlaintiffEmployer LiabilityReasonable AccommodationTitle VII Civil Rights Act
References
27
Case No. ADJ8182118
Regular
Jun 24, 2015

ROBERT DALLAS vs. PAN PACIFIC PETROLEUM, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

In *Robert Dallas v. Pan Pacific Petroleum*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a May 5, 2015 decision. The WCAB determined that reconsideration was necessary due to statutory time constraints and an initial review revealing further study of factual and legal issues was required for a just decision. Pending the decision after reconsideration, all related communications must be filed solely with the WCAB Commissioners' office in San Francisco and not through the district office or e-filing system.

Petition for ReconsiderationGrant of ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersSan FranciscoElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Trial Level Documents
References
0
Case No. ADJ6990080
Regular
Jan 04, 2012

JEROME ALLEN vs. MILWAUKEE BUCKS, DALLAS MAVERICKS, CLEVELAND CAVALIERS, DENVER NUGGETS, INDIANA PACERS, MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES, TIG INSURANCE As Administered By RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT (For All Teams)

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Jerome Allen against several NBA teams and their insurer. The Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. This reconsideration is for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications in this matter should be directed to the Board's Office of the Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationFactual and Legal IssuesStatutory Time ConstraintsFurther ProceedingsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersAlfonso J. MoresiFrank M. Brass
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
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