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. 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. ADJ7200789
Regular
Nov 08, 2012

ERASMO QUINTANILLA AVILES vs. PACER INTERNATIONAL, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the applicant, Erasmo Quintanilla Aviles, sought benefits for industrial injuries. The defendant, Pacer International, challenged the finding that the applicant was an employee, arguing lack of persuasive control and misinterpretation of their contract. The applicant also contested the findings regarding the specific body parts injured. After granting reconsideration, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original decision in its entirety. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, denying the defendant's petition and upholding the finding of industrial injury and employee status.

Independent ContractorPersuasive ControlFindings & AwardReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryBurden of ProofWCJContract InterpretationPacer International
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gusek v. Compass Transportation Corp.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The appellate court found that the plaintiff successfully established that defendant Ryan S. Adkins's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and the defendants failed to present a triable issue of fact to counter this. Furthermore, the court determined that defendants Compass Transportation Corporation, Compass Enterprises, Inc., as vehicle owners, and G.D. Leasing of Indiana, Inc., as Adkins's employer, were vicariously liable for his negligence, reinforcing the conclusion that summary judgment should have been granted to the plaintiff on the issue of liability.

NegligenceVicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseContributory NegligenceVehicle and Traffic LawEmployer LiabilityAccidentPersonal Injury
References
11
Case No. ADJ7041227
Regular
Aug 09, 2017

GERALD PADDIO vs. CLEVELAND CAVALIERS, SEATTLE SUPERSONICS, INDIANA PACERS, WASHINGTON BULLETS/WASHINGTON WIZARDS, TIG INSURANCE, NEW YORK KNICKERBOCKERS, CHICAGO ROCKERS, LAS VEGAS SLAM/ CHICAGO SKYLINERS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Travelers Indemnity Company's petition for reconsideration, affirming its subject matter jurisdiction over applicant Gerald Paddio's cumulative injury claim. The Board found that Paddio's hiring as a professional basketball player in California, through his agent accepting an offer in San Francisco, established jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305. The Board also noted that the issue of potential exemption from California law, raised by the defendant, was not ripe for appeal and must be addressed at the trial level. All other issues remain deferred for determination by a Workers' Compensation Judge.

Subject matter jurisdictionLabor Code section 3600.5Labor Code section 5305Contract of hireProfessional basketball playerCumulative industrial injuryPetition for reconsiderationDenial of petitionAdministrative law judgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burnett v. Columbus McKinnon Corp.

Doug Burnett, an Ohio resident, was injured in Indiana in May 2001 by a steel coil from a hook manufactured by the defendant, a New York corporation. The central issue on appeal is whether New York or Indiana substantive law should apply to this personal injury action, given conflicts in comparative negligence and employer fault apportionment. The court, applying New York's choice-of-law principles and the third Neumeier rule, determines that the substantive law of Indiana, the situs of the tort, should govern the case. The court concluded that applying New York law would create uncertainty and New York has no interest in benefiting nonresidents to the detriment of its residents in this context. Consequently, the lower court's order applying New York law is reversed, and the defendant's motion for the application of Indiana law is granted, while the plaintiff's motion is denied. The issue of the 'nonparty' defense under Indiana law was deemed unripe for review.

Personal InjuryChoice of LawComparative NegligenceIndiana LawNew York LawEmployer LiabilityProduct LiabilityNeumeier RulesLoss AllocationTort Law
References
18
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01835 [215 AD3d 414]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2023

Bankers Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York, which denied the defendant's motion to compel documents and serve additional interrogatories. The court found that Indiana's insurance examination privilege protected internal communications sought by the defendant. Additionally, Indiana's professional services privilege was deemed applicable to Washington National as a client, with no waiver despite the production of some nonprivileged communications. The defendant was also not entitled to confidential settlement agreements or pleadings from other cases due to a judge's protective order, and the request for monetary amounts was considered premature. Finally, the denial of additional interrogatories was upheld as overbroad, seeking confidential information, and rendered superfluous by the plaintiffs' damages expert report.

PrivilegeInsurance Examination PrivilegeDiscoveryMotion to CompelIndiana LawProfessional Services PrivilegeConfidentialitySettlement AgreementsInterrogatoriesAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2014

Whitehaven S.F., LLC v. Spangler

This case involves a dispute over the validity and enforceability of an arbitration clause within a litigation financing agreement. Petitioner Whitehaven S.F., LLC sought to compel Respondent Steven Spangler to arbitrate after Spangler initiated an Indiana state court action to void their financing agreement, citing unconscionability. The District Court granted Whitehaven's motion, finding the arbitration clause valid under New York law and rejecting Spangler's arguments that it was unconscionable or violated a prior Assurance of Discontinuance with the New York Attorney General. The court also ordered a stay of the Indiana Proceeding concerning claims between Whitehaven and Spangler, but excluded third-party Harvey Thatcher from arbitration as he was not a signatory to the agreement. The decision underscores the strong federal policy favoring arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementLitigation FinancingContract EnforceabilityUnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration ActAssurance of DiscontinuanceNew York LawChoice of LawDeclaratory JudgmentStay of Proceedings
References
59
Case No. ADJ6943108
Regular
Dec 28, 2015

LARRY TRIPPLET vs. SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, INC., A Corporation of the STATE OF DELAWARE, dba INDIANA COLTS, insured by GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE CO., c/o BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. This action was taken to allow the Board further time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues of the case. The Board seeks to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the record before issuing a just and reasoned decision. All future correspondence regarding the petition must be filed directly with the Board's Commissioners, not district offices.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ6943108Seattle SeahawksIndianapolis ColtsGreat Divide Insurance Co.Berkley Specialty Underwriting ManagersOpinion and OrderGranting PetitionStatutory Time Constraints
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1989

Widawski v. United Beef Packers, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant United Beef Packers failed to sufficiently establish its defense as a matter of law. Material issues of fact exist regarding whether United Beef Packers had severed all ties to the Indiana meat-packing plant where the plaintiff sustained injury on September 7, 1986. This injury occurred before the plaintiff’s employer, Hebrew National Kosher Foods, Inc., moved its operation there. The various depositions did not resolve whether the plaintiff’s sole remedy lies against Hebrew National based on workers’ compensation.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationMaterial Issues of FactCorporate LiabilitySevered TiesMeat-packing PlantEmployer ResponsibilityPersonal InjuryAppellate DecisionSupreme Court
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 14 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