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. 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 The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior finding, ruling that the Ingolstadt Panthers were not exempt under section 3600.5(c) as the player did not work temporarily in California for them.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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2013

Soodoo v. LC, LLC

This case involves an appeal by defendants LC, LLC, and Limrink Realty Corp. against an order dismissing their cross-claims for contribution, indemnification, and breach of contract against co-defendant Atlantic Contracting of New York, Inc. The original action was brought by an unnamed plaintiff for personal injuries sustained at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted Atlantic's motion to dismiss the cross-claims. On appeal, the court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the cross-claims stated cognizable causes of action. Consequently, the cross-claims were denied dismissal and converted into third-party causes of action.

Personal InjuryConstruction SiteCross-claimsContributionIndemnificationBreach of ContractMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate DivisionThird-Party Action
References
16
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. ADJ4303823
Regular
Dec 11, 2008

GLORIA BUSTOS vs. BAYSIDE SERVICES/STAFFING, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION through their servicing facility CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., for LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of retroactive VRMA, finding that merely listing vocational rehabilitation as an issue in applications did not establish a good faith demand for services. However, the Board rescinded the denial of attorney's fees under LC 5814.5, remanding the issue for further determination in light of the en banc decision in *Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services*. This ruling clarifies that LC 5814.5 applies to delays occurring after January 1, 2003, regardless of the injury date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceQualified Injured WorkerLabor Code section 5814.5Date of InjuryDate of AwardApplication for Adjudication of ClaimGood Faith DemandRehabilitation UnitUnreasonable Delay
References
5
Case No. ADJ9519790
Regular
Sep 10, 2019

MARK CARREON vs. CLEVELAND INDIANS, SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS

This case concerns the Cleveland Indians' petition for reconsideration, arguing that California workers' compensation jurisdiction is barred under Labor Code Section 3600.5(d) due to the applicant's last year of employment with the Jackson Diamond Cats. The Board affirmed the original award, finding the Indians failed to meet their burden of proving the exemption. The applicant's employment with the Diamond Cats was not established as "professional athlete" employment under the statute, nor was it proven that the Diamond Cats qualified for exemption under Section 3600.5(c) as the applicant did not work in California for that team. Furthermore, the Indians failed to identify or prove any other law exempting the Diamond Cats from California jurisdiction.

Labor Code 3600.5WCAB jurisdictionprofessional athlete exemptioncumulative trauma injuryMark CarreonCleveland IndiansSan Francisco GiantsCIGAGallagher BassettJackson Diamond Cats
References
0
Case No. ADJ8022272
Regular
Jan 17, 2014

DICK AMBROSE vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS/CLEVELAND BROWNS

This case concerns Dick Ambrose's workers' compensation claim against the Baltimore Ravens/Cleveland Browns. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that California's workers' compensation jurisdiction was exempt under Labor Code Section 3600.5(b) because the applicant was only temporarily in California and the employer provided coverage under Ohio law. The Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, largely adopting the ALJ's reasoning regarding the admissibility of evidence and the application of Section 3600.5(b). Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that the applicant's routine work in California over a decade made his presence more than temporary, and also raised concerns about Ohio's reciprocal protections and the employer's self-insurance compliance.

Labor Code Section 3600.5(b)exemption from California jurisdictiontemporary presenceextraterritorial provisionsOhio Revised Codeself-insurancemandatory settlement conferencecumulative injuryprofessional football playeradministrative law judge
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1977

McCallin v. Walsh

The dissenting opinion, penned by Murphy, P. J., challenges specific provisions of Local Law No. 5, particularly those concerning smoke venting and stairway pressurization, deeming them unconstitutional and unenforceable due to economic unfeasibility and lack of clear performance standards. The dissent clarifies that Local Law No. 5 does not mandate sprinklerization, interpreting the word "exempt" in its plain meaning. While agreeing with the majority on the Fire Commissioner's authority to create fire warden positions and denying class action status in the McCallin suit, the opinion criticizes Local Law No. 5 as hastily conceived and carelessly formulated, advocating for redrafted provisions to ensure effective fire safety programs.

Local Law No. 5Fire Safety RegulationsBuilding Code ChallengesUnconstitutional ProvisionsStairway PressurizationSmoke VentingStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentClass Action LitigationFire Warden Appointment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No. 5 v. Hudson Valley District Council Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Joint Benefit Funds

This case concerns the authority of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen to appoint trustees to employee benefit (ERISA) funds, displacing previously appointed trustees from superseded local union entities. The International Union merged local entities into a new Local 5 and appointed Emil Parietti, Jr. as its President, granting him authority to appoint trustees. A previously appointed trustee declined to be replaced, causing a dispute where the new Local 5 has fewer than its authorized number of trustees on the ERISA funds. The court found that the International Union has the ultimate authority in such matters and that the continued service of trustees against the appointing authority's wishes causes irreparable injury. While the plaintiffs' specific request for an injunction was deemed too broad, the court determined that the requirements for a preliminary injunction placing Mr. Parietti's designee were met. The court directed the parties to seek settlement and ordered the defendants to show cause why such a preliminary injunction should not be entered.

International Trade UnionsLabor Management Relations ActERISAEmployee Benefit FundsTrustee AppointmentUnion Internal StructureLocal Union MergerPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,527 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