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. ADJ6579284
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

Paul Smith III vs. Denver Broncos Football, Great Divide Insurance Company

The Denver Broncos Football filed a petition for removal contesting a joinder order issued by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the applicant's answer, and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board denied the petition for removal, emphasizing that removal is an extraordinary remedy. It concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would not be an inadequate remedy if an adverse final decision were to be issued.

Petition for RemovalOrder of JoinderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmitted EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceHolmberg
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. ADJ10229956
Regular
Aug 13, 2018

VIRGIL GRAY vs. ARENA FOOTBALL LEAGUE, SAN JOSE SABERCATS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, UNINSURED EMPLOYER BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case denies the defendants' petition for reconsideration of a finding of joint employment for an industrial knee injury. The applicant, Virgil Gray, was found to be a joint employee of both the Arena Football League and the San Jose SaberCats, despite receiving paychecks from the League. Evidence such as the San Jose SaberCats' direct control over the applicant's work, provision of equipment, and housing, supported the finding that both entities exercised the right to direct and control his activities. The Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, finding the totality of the record supported joint employment.

joint employmentspecial employergeneral employerArena Football LeagueSan Jose SaberCatsZurich American InsuranceUninsured Employer Benefits Trust Fundprofessional athleteindustrial injuryleft knee
References
13
Case No. ADJ8517777
Regular
Oct 07, 2019

DOUGLAS ARONSON vs. WORLD LEAGUE OF AMERICAN FOOTBALL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, PHILADELPHIA EGLES, FAIRMONT PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY

In *Aronson v. World League of American Football*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, upholding an arbitrator's finding. The core issue was whether the State Compensation Insurance Fund's (SCIF) policy covered all employees of the League injured within California's jurisdiction, or only those affiliated with the Sacramento Surge. The Board affirmed that standard workers' compensation policies cover all employees unless explicitly limited, and any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the insured. Therefore, SCIF's policy was interpreted to provide coverage for all League employees injured in California during the relevant period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationInsurance Policy InterpretationSCIF PolicyCalifornia JurisdictionAmbiguity Resolved Against InsurerGreatest CoverageArbitrator's DecisionFindings and AwardState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
Case No. ADJ6720229
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

PATRICK BARNES vs. CLEVELAND BROWNS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC, SAN FRANCISCO DEMONS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE, NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, OAKLAND RAIDERS, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of an order that allowed the defendant, Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC, to potentially introduce video evidence. The original administrative law judge excluded the video as untimely disclosed, citing Labor Code section 5502(d)(3), which generally closes discovery at mandatory settlement conferences. The Appeals Board initially granted removal to review the exclusion, finding the video potentially relevant. However, the Board now denies reconsideration because the prior order was interlocutory and not a final determination of rights or liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)DiscoveryVideo EvidenceCumulative TraumaProfessional AthleteAdministrative Law Judge
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 68 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