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. 2022 NY Slip Op 02559
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2022

Ortega v. Panther Siding & Windows, Inc.

The plaintiff Rene Ortega was injured after falling from a roof while working as a foreman for a subcontractor, Golden Hammer Construction Group, Corp., which was working for Panther Siding & Windows, Inc. Ortega sued Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law sections and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. The court found that Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., established it was neither the general contractor nor an agent of the owner at the accident site, thus lacking the nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Ortega failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryFall from heightLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilitySubcontractorConstruction AccidentElevation-related riskSafety devices
References
4
Case No. ADJ9314776
Regular
May 16, 2018

Ken Sutton vs. San Jose Sharks, Federal Insurance Company

This case involves a professional hockey player's cumulative trauma claim against the San Jose Sharks. The employer sought exemption from California workers' compensation jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(d), arguing the player's last employer, the Ingolstadt Panthers, was exempt. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior finding, ruling that the Ingolstadt Panthers were not exempt under section 3600.5(c) as the player did not work temporarily in California for them. Consequently, the claim is not exempt under section 3600.5(d), and the WCAB retains jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Jose SharksFederal Insurance Companycumulative trauma claimLabor Code section 3600.5(d)professional athleteIngolstadt Pantherssubject matter jurisdictionvocational rehabilitationduty days
References
9
Case No. ADJ3712262 (AHM 0138707)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

BRIAN HICKS vs. TENNESSEE TITANS, CAROLINA PANTHERS, et al.

This case involves a lien claimant, ACS Recovery Services, Inc., seeking reconsideration of a disallowance of its lien and denial of penalties. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed ACS's petition for reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. The WCJ's report highlighted this defect, and ACS failed to cure it or provide a compelling explanation within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition, noting it would have been denied on the merits otherwise.

ACS Recovery ServicesLien claimantPetition for reconsiderationVerified petitionLabor Code section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyDisallowancePenaltiesInterestWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ8017582
Regular
Aug 02, 2012

RONALD BRENT ALEXANDER vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, BERKLEY SPECIALTY; PITTSBURG STEELERS; ARIZONA CARDINALS; CAROLINA PANTHERS

This case involves a dispute over venue for a workers' compensation claim filed by a former professional football player. The applicant initially selected the Santa Ana district office based on his attorney's principal place of business. However, the defendant insurance carrier timely objected to this venue, arguing that pursuant to Labor Code section 5501.5(c), venue must be in the county of the applicant's residence or last injurious exposure if an objection is raised. As the applicant does not reside in California, the Board granted the petition for removal and remanded the case to determine the county of last exposure to establish proper venue.

Petition for RemovalVenue TransferLabor Code Section 5501.5Principal Place of BusinessObjection to VenueLast Injurious ExposureWCAB Rule 10410Applicant's ResidenceIndustrial InjuryProfessional Football Player
References
0
Case No. ADJ9309327
Regular
Jan 27, 2017

DONALD AUDETTE vs. ATLANTA THRASHERS, DALLAS STARS, LOS ANGELES KINGS, MONTREAL CANADIENS, FLORIDA PANTHERS, BUFFALO SABRES; FEDERAL INS. CO., administered by CHUBB GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendants' Petitions for Reconsideration of a November 2, 2016 decision. This grant is based on an initial review indicating statutory time constraints require further study of the factual and legal issues. The Board will conduct further proceedings to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future correspondence regarding the petitions must be filed directly with the Office of the Commissioners, not district offices or EAMS.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Rules of the Administrative DirectorDeclarations of Readiness
References
0
Case No. ADJ9065158
Regular
Aug 12, 2016

GARY ROBERTS vs. TAMPA BAY LIGHTNING, PITTSBURGH PENGUINS, FLORIDA PANTHERS, TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS, CAROLINA HURRICANES, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY / CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, CALGARY FLAMES

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: This case concerns the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) jurisdiction over a professional hockey player's cumulative injury claim. The WCAB affirmed jurisdiction, finding that the applicant's 59 games played in California created a sufficient connection for due process, despite most of his career being elsewhere. The Board distinguished this case from precedent where a single game was deemed insufficient contact. The petition for reconsideration was denied, as California has a legitimate interest in adjudicating injuries sustained within its borders.

Cumulative TraumaJurisdictionProfessional AthleteHockey PlayerDue ProcessSubstantial InterestExtraterritorial ProvisionsReciprocityDe Minimis ConnectionInjurious Exposure
References
2
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. ADJ6671169
Regular
Oct 16, 2013

Christian Fauria vs. Carolina Panthers, Great Divide Insurance Co., Berkley Specialty Underwriting Managers, LLC, Washington Redskins, ESIS Insurance, New England Patriots, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Travelers Indemnity Co., Golf Insurance Co., Seattle Seahawks

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award finding California jurisdiction over Christian Fauria's claim due to lack of "regular employment" in California, as defined by Labor Code Section 3600.5(a). The case was remanded to the trial level to determine if jurisdiction exists based on injuries sustained within California or if the contract of hire was made in California, as per Labor Code Section 5305. The WCAB also instructed the judge to address all issues, including apportionment and liability periods under Labor Code Section 5500.5. The decision highlights the need for substantial evidence to establish jurisdiction and injury contribution within the state.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristian FauriaProfessional AthleteIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600.5(a)Statute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5500.5Jurisdiction
References
29
Case No. ADJ10354615
Regular
Jun 10, 2019

MILFORD BROWN vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, ST. LOUIS RAMS, CAROLINA PANTHERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, CARE OF BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CARE OF QUAL-LYNX, INC., DETROIT LIONS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a Petition for Removal in the case of Milford Brown. The Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The petitioner failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the case will proceed through the standard workers' compensation process.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyAdverse DecisionArizona CardinalsSt. Louis Rams
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hull v. Petrillo

Plaintiffs, distributors of 'The Black Panther' newspaper, sought a temporary restraining order and injunction against officials of the City of Mount Vernon. They alleged harassment and unconstitutional interference with newspaper distribution due to the application of a city ordinance requiring a peddler's license, violating their First Amendment rights. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that any incidents of interference were deviations from official policy and that the ordinance did not apply to newspaper sales. The court, referencing Belknap v. Leary, found no evidence of ongoing official policy violations or a need for injunctive relief, as prior infringements had ceased. Consequently, the defendants' motion was re-characterized as a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) and was granted, thereby dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

Freedom of the PressFirst Amendment RightsTemporary Restraining OrderSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCity OrdinancesNewspaper DistributionPolice HarassmentConstitutional Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10 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