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. ADJ10232171
Regular
Apr 10, 2017

HERMAN O'BERRY vs. WORLD LEAGUE OF AMERICAN FOOTBALL aka NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE EUROPE (NFL EUROPE), ST. LOUIS RAMS, FAIRMONT PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY (TIG)

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for cumulative injury filed by a former professional football player against his former employers and their insurer. The primary issue was the statute of limitations, specifically the date of injury under Labor Code Section 5412, which is when the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related. The Board granted reconsideration to clarify this date, finding that the applicant's filing of his claim application on December 17, 2015, was the earliest documented evidence of his knowledge of the connection between his employment and his cumulative injury, establishing this as the date of injury. The employer's exemption from providing notice under Section 3600.5(e) did not alter this determination regarding the applicant's actual knowledge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNFL EuropeSt. Louis RamsLabor Code section 5405Labor Code section 5412cumulative injurydate of injurystatute of limitationspetition for reconsiderationApplication for Adjudication of Claim
References
16
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. National Football League

Orlando Brown, a former NFL player, and his wife Mira Brown, sued the National Football League (NFL) for personal injuries. Brown's career ended after an NFL referee negligently threw a weighted penalty flag, striking him in the eye. The case was removed from New York state court to federal court. The NFL moved to dismiss and compel arbitration, arguing the claims were preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA and related to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Plaintiffs cross-moved to remand, asserting their claims were independent state law torts. The Court denied the NFL's motion, finding the duties alleged were general state law duties, not solely derived from the CBA. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court.

Personal InjuryNegligenceFederal PreemptionLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)ArbitrationRemand to State CourtDuty of CareVicarious LiabilityAssumption of Risk
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2005

National Football League v. Vigilant Insurance

This appeal addresses whether a former college football player's antitrust lawsuit against the NFL, regarding its draft eligibility rule, falls under the employment practices exclusion of an insurance policy issued by Vigilant. The court determined that the exclusion was open to a reasonable interpretation that would make it inapplicable to the antitrust claim. As a result, the trial court's dismissal of the complaint was reversed. The court emphasized that the exclusion, primarily focused on employment law claims and workplace torts, did not clearly and unambiguously extend to the NFL's liability when not acting as an employer in an antitrust context. Consequently, any ambiguity in the policy's scope was resolved in favor of the insured, the NFL.

Insurance Coverage LitigationEmployment Practices ExclusionAntitrust Law ChallengeNFL Draft RulesPolicy AmbiguityContract InterpretationDeclaratory ReliefWrongful Deprivation of Career OpportunityStatutory ConstructionEjusdem Generis Principle
References
8
Case No. ADJ9078228
Regular
Jun 17, 2016

MICHAEL PROCTOR vs. WORLD LEAGUE OF AMERICAN FOOTBALL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a professional football player's claim for workers' compensation benefits in California. The applicant, Michael Proctor, argued that California had sufficient interest in his injury to apply its workers' compensation laws, citing the *Johnson* case. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied his petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found that playing only two games in California during his career did not establish a sufficient connection to the state for jurisdiction, as per the due process requirements outlined in *Johnson*. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed the administrative law judge's decision that it lacked jurisdiction over the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryProfessional Football PlayerSubject Matter JurisdictionConstitutional Due ProcessLabor Code Section 3600.5Minimum ThresholdLegitimate and Substantial ConnectionDue Process ClauseAdjudication of Claim
References
3
Case No. ADJ694922 (ANA 0407404)
Regular
Mar 17, 2017

JAMES A. FINN, JR. vs. NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS, INC., GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant sustained a cumulative industrial injury while employed as a professional football player. Crucially, the Board affirmed jurisdiction based on the applicant credibly testifying he accepted the employment contract via telephone from his California residence in 2005. The defendant's arguments regarding permanent disability, apportionment, and medical evidence were deemed premature as the permanent disability percentage has not yet been determined.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryProfessional Football PlayerContract of HireCalifornia JurisdictionLabor Code Sections 3600.5 and 5305Petition for ReconsiderationSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
29
Case No. ADJ7019654
Regular
Feb 06, 2013

KEENAN MCCARDELL vs. CHARGERS FOOTBALL CO., LLC dba SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE CO., administered by BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, LLC, JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS, TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, ACE/PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE administered by NOVA PRO RISK SOLUTIONS, CLEVELAND BROWNS, WASHINGTON REDSKINS, ACE, administered by ESIS, HOUSTON TEXANS, RELIANCE AND LEGION INSURANCE, in liquidation by CIGA, TRAVELERS

This case concerns Keenan McCardell's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained as a professional football player from January 2007 to January 2008. The primary issue on reconsideration was whether the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Board affirmed the original award, finding that McCardell did not sustain a disabling injury until he sought line-of-duty benefits in July 2009, which was less than a year before filing his workers' compensation claim. Therefore, the claim was deemed timely filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKeenan McCardellChargers Football Co.LLCGreat Divide Insurance Co.occupational injuryprofessional athletecumulative injurystatute of limitationsLabor Code section 5405
References
0
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. ADJ2162037 (ANA 0395508)
Regular
Jun 08, 2009

SHAWN STUCKEY vs. XFL LOS ANGELES XTREME, GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a professional football player seeking workers' compensation for cumulative trauma injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, agreeing to use the pre-2005 disability rating schedule but finding the initial 74% permanent disability award unsupported by substantial evidence. The Board rescinded the award and remanded the case for further development of the record, specifically requiring a medical examiner to address apportionment of disability based on causation under current law. The primary issue is the proper apportionment of permanent disability considering the applicant's extensive history of prior injuries from high school and college football.

Cumulative traumaPermanent disability ratingApportionmentOld rating scheduleNew rating scheduleSubstantial evidenceAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Qualified Medical Examiners (QMEs)Labor Code section 5701Causation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hopkins v. Players' Three, Inc.

Claimant, a part-time employee of Players' Three, Inc. (Huey's Bar), was severely injured during a hold-up on the premises. He sought workers' compensation benefits, which the Workers' Compensation Board granted, finding an employer-employee relationship, that the injury arose in the course of employment, and that the employer's carrier had not effectively cancelled its policy. The employer and the Superintendent of Insurance appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the factual findings regarding employment and that the carrier failed to meet the strict requirements for policy cancellation under Workers' Compensation Law § 54.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAccidental InjuryHold-up IncidentInsurance Policy CancellationStatutory ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssuesNew York Workers' Compensation Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 110 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