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. ADJ7222283
Regular
Feb 04, 2014

Gregory Montgomery vs. Baltimore Ravens, Tennessee Titans, Travelers Insurance Co.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award, finding that California's workers' compensation jurisdiction was exempted for the applicant's temporary work in California for the Baltimore Ravens. The WCAB determined that under former Labor Code section 3600.5(b), the Ravens met the requirements for exemption by providing Maryland workers' compensation coverage, which included extraterritorial provisions for employee work in other states. The Board also found that Maryland law reciprocally recognized California's extraterritorial provisions and exempted California employers. Consequently, the applicant's claim against the Baltimore Ravens was dismissed.

Labor Code section 3600.5(b)extraterritorial coveragereciprocityself-insured employerMaryland Workers' Compensation Commissiontemporary employmentprofessional football playercumulative traumaoccupational diseasestatute of limitations
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1990

Trump Village Section 3, Inc. v. Sinrod

The case involves a dissenting opinion regarding a landlord-tenant dispute over an anti-pet provision in a cooperative building. Judge Friedmann dissents, arguing that the defendants, the Sinrods, openly and notoriously harbored their dog, Coco, for seven months, thereby leading the plaintiff cooperative to waive its anti-pet policy under New York City's "Pet Law." Despite the plaintiff's claim of late awareness, the judge found the evidence of frequent public dog walking compelling. The dissent concludes that ruling against the defendants would impose an unreasonable burden on tenants and defeat the purpose of the Pet Law, especially since no nuisance was cited. Therefore, the judge advocates for reversing the prior order and dismissing the complaint.

Pet LawWaiverNo-Pet PolicyOpen and Notorious HarboringCooperative HousingApartment RegulationsNew York City Administrative CodeHousing DisputeTenant RightsLandlord-Tenant Law
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03046 [238 AD3d 998]
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2025

Gaudreau v. Cucuzzo

The plaintiff, David Gaudreau, appealed an order granting summary judgment to Randall Provisions, Inc., dismissing the complaint against it. The personal injury action arose from a motor vehicle collision involving the plaintiff and Vincent N. Cucuzzo, who worked for Randall. The central legal question was whether Cucuzzo was an employee or an independent contractor, crucial for establishing Randall's vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Supreme Court had initially found Cucuzzo to be an independent contractor and granted summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, determining that Randall failed to present sufficient evidence to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding Cucuzzo's employment status, noting conflicting evidence on control and compensation.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentMotor Vehicle CollisionPersonal InjuriesTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewEmployment Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Skyline, Inc. v. Empire State Building Co.

New York Skyline Inc. (Skyline) appealed a Bankruptcy Court judgment regarding a lease dispute with its landlord, ESB. The District Court, after vacating the initial judgment due to jurisdictional issues and remanding, is now reviewing the Bankruptcy Court's proposed findings as findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appeal centered on two provisions: the "Electricity Provision" concerning utility billing methodology and the "Protocol Provision" which restricted Skyline's employees from receiving commissions for sales "near the Building". The District Court accepted the Bankruptcy Court's findings on the Electricity Provision, ruling in favor of ESB. However, the District Court rejected the Bankruptcy Court's interpretation of "near the Building" in the Protocol Provision, finding that ESB had not proven its broader definition and thus limiting the scope of any potential injunction against Skyline.

Bankruptcy AppealLease DisputeContract InterpretationElectricity BillingSales CommissionsGeographic RestrictionDemand (Electricity)Connected LoadJudicial ReviewLandlord-Tenant Law
References
27
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. ADJ3250254 (ANA 0403409)
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

TROY SADOWSKI vs. CINCINNATI BENGALS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a WCJ's decision finding no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's claim. The player was hired and covered by Ohio workers' compensation, and his presence in California was temporary for work. This temporary presence, combined with Ohio's reciprocal extraterritorial provisions, exempted the parties from California's workers' compensation law per Labor Code section 3600.5(b). The Board relied on its en banc decision in *Carroll v. Cincinnati Bengals* which established these exemption criteria.

Subject Matter JurisdictionLabor Code Section 3600.5(b)Temporary Presence ExceptionExtraterritorial ProvisionsOhio Workers' Compensation LawCincinnati BengalsProfessional Football PlayerCumulative Industrial InjuryReconsiderationEn Banc Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salsman v. Barden & Robeson Corp.

This appeal addresses complex choice-of-law questions in a personal injury action. A Pennsylvania resident, employed by a New York company and receiving New York workers' compensation, was injured at a Massachusetts construction site and sued the New York general contractor. The core legal dispute centered on the extraterritorial application of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The court determined these Labor Law provisions are conduct-regulating rules, not loss-allocating rules, and therefore do not apply to accidents outside New York's borders. Consequently, the plaintiff's second cause of action, based on these Labor Laws, was dismissed. The decision also clarified the applicable law for third-party claims, ruling Massachusetts law governs contractual indemnity, while New York law applies to contribution and implied indemnification.

Choice of LawConstruction AccidentLabor Law ApplicationExtraterritorialityAbsolute LiabilityIndemnificationContributionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSummary JudgmentNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Electric Co. v. New York State Department of Labor

General Electric (GE) challenged New York’s prevailing wage law (N.Y.Lab.Law § 220), seeking its invalidation and an injunction against enforcement. The court previously denied GE's preliminary injunction, but the Second Circuit vacated that decision, ruling that Section 220's "supplements" provisions were preempted by ERISA and remanding for a determination on unconstitutional delegation. Both GE and the State moved for summary judgment. The court found the wage provisions of Section 220 severable from the preempted supplement provisions and that non-ERISA supplement provisions were not implicitly preempted. GE's equal protection and delegation challenges were rejected. Consequently, GE's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted for counts one, three, four, and five of the complaint.

ERISA PreemptionNLRA PreemptionNew York Prevailing Wage LawStatutory SeverabilityUnconstitutional DelegationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionEleventh Amendment
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&M Bus Corp. v. New York City Department of Education

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 petition brought by 23 prospective bidders against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) regarding the propriety of a Request for Bids (RFB) for transporting handicapped children. Petitioners challenged several provisions of the RFB, including employee protection provisions (EPPs), indefinite bid specifications, and a 2% prompt payment discount, arguing they were anticompetitive and violated public bidding laws. The Supreme Court struck the EPPs and other provisions found to inflate bids and directed DOE to provide more accurate information on children's addresses. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the striking of EPPs and other anticompetitive provisions, modified the order regarding the disclosure of children's addresses by vacating that specific requirement due to privacy concerns and remanding for further proceedings, and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.

Competitive BiddingPublic ContractsEmployee Protection Provisions (EPPs)Anticompetitive PracticesRequest for Bids (RFB)Contract LawGovernment ProcurementJudicial ReviewLabor PeaceProject Labor Agreement (PLA)
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2014

In re Arbitration between City of Lockport & Lockport Professional Firefighters Ass'n

The petitioner, an employer of firefighters, appealed an order denying its petition to stay arbitration and granting the respondent's cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose from the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA), specifically a "staffing provision" that set a minimum number of firefighters per shift. Petitioner reduced the minimum staffing level from nine to seven firefighters per shift after removing an ambulance from service. Respondent, the firefighters' bargaining representative, filed a grievance, arguing a violation of the CBA, and demanded arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's request to stay arbitration, compelling it instead. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the staffing provision was a safety provision, not a non-arbitrable job security provision, and therefore the dispute was arbitrable under the strong public policy favoring arbitration in public sector labor disputes. The court also found that the merits of the staffing level reduction were for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationPublic PolicyJob Security ProvisionSafety ProvisionFirefightersMinimum Staffing LevelsGrievance
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,346 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