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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chen v. Major League Baseball

John Chen sued Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. and the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (MLB) under the FLSA and NYLL, claiming minimum wage violations for his unpaid volunteer work during the 2013 Baseball All Star Game's "FanFest". He sought conditional class certification. MLB moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Chen was a volunteer and that FanFest, as a seasonal "amusement or recreational establishment," was exempt from FLSA minimum wage requirements. The court granted MLB's motion to dismiss the FLSA claims, finding that FanFest qualified for the Section 13(a)(3) exemption due to its short operational period and status as a distinct physical place of business. Consequently, Chen's motion for collective certification was denied as moot, and his state-law NYLL claims were dismissed without prejudice.

FLSA ExemptionMinimum Wage ClaimsVolunteer EmploymentSeasonal OperationsDistinct Physical Place of BusinessEnterprise vs EstablishmentClass Action DenialState Law Claims DismissalJudicial DiscretionStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

This opinion and order by District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin addresses a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal regarding the "baseball exemption" from antitrust liability. The MLB Defendants, joined by Television Defendants, sought to appeal an earlier ruling from August 8, 2014, which held that the Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball was not shielded by the baseball exemption in cases like Laumann v. National Hockey League and Garber v. Major League Baseball. The court denies the motion, finding no substantial ground for difference of opinion on the baseball exemption's applicability, nor would an immediate appeal materially advance the litigation's termination. Furthermore, the court clarifies that the scope of the baseball exemption is a threshold merits issue, not a jurisdictional question.

Interlocutory AppealSummary JudgmentAntitrust LiabilityBaseball ExemptionSherman ActControlling Question of LawSubstantial Ground for Difference of OpinionMaterially Advance LitigationJurisdictional IssueMerits Issue
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, LLP v. WN Partner, LLC

This dissenting opinion addresses an arbitration dispute over telecast rights fees between the Baltimore Orioles/MASN and the Washington Nationals, administered by Major League Baseball (MLB). MASN and the Orioles sought to vacate the arbitration award, alleging evident partiality due to conflicts of interest involving the Nationals' law firm, an MLB loan to the Nationals, and MLB's significant influence. While the Supreme Court vacated the award, it remanded the matter to the same arbitral forum (RSDC). The dissent argues that MLB's pervasive bias, financial stake, and the Commissioner's public statements prevent a fundamentally fair rehearing by the RSDC, necessitating referral to a neutral forum like the American Arbitration Association to preserve arbitration integrity.

ArbitrationEvident PartialityContract ReformationJudicial Review of ArbitrationSports LawBaseball IndustryConflict of InterestArbitrator BiasArbitral Forum SelectionDissenting Opinion
References
23
Case No. 0976 2335
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2011

Claim of Runge v. National League of Baseball

The claimant sustained knee injuries in March 1997. The workers' compensation carrier continued to pay medical expenses until 2002, despite the claim being closed in April 1998. In 2004, the claimant sought to reopen the claim, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found it time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 123. The Appellate Division modified the decision, ruling that the carrier's voluntary payments for causally related medical treatments during the relevant period precluded the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 123. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Time-barred claimsReopened claimsMedical expense reimbursementVoluntary paymentsStatutory barAppellate decisionRemittedKnee injuryWorkers’ Compensation Law § 123Continuing jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2011

Claim of Runge v. National Baseball League

The claimant, a major league baseball umpire, allegedly injured his right knee in May 1992. The employer initially paid medical bills but later disputed them and sought relief from the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, also arguing the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Board found WCL § 123 inapplicable, ruling that the case was not truly closed because further medical evidence was contemplated in 1992 and 2005. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence and that WCL § 123 did not bar further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawSection 123Section 25-aCase ReopeningStatute of LimitationsMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionKnee InjuryClaim Closure
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01870 [181 AD3d 1116]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Hirschbeck v. Office of the Commr. of Major League Baseball

Claimant Mark Hirschbeck appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which denied his application for review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision. The Board's denial was based on procedural non-compliance, specifically that the claimant failed to properly fill out the RB-89 form by merely referencing the entire Board case file instead of specifying relevant documents. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application due to the claimant's failure to adhere to prescribed formatting and completion requirements. The court noted that arguments regarding the underlying merits of the WCLJ's decision were not properly before them. This case underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in workers' compensation appeals.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewProcedural ComplianceApplication DenialAdministrative LawBoard ReviewWCLJ DecisionRB-89 FormRegulatory RequirementsClaimant Representation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Neeld v. American Hockey League

Plaintiff Gregory P. Neeld, a one-eyed individual, sought a preliminary injunction against the American Hockey League (AHL) to challenge its by-law (Article 13(e)) prohibiting one-eyed players from participating in professional hockey. Neeld alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York's Human Rights Law § 296(1)(a). The court dismissed the § 1983 claim for lack of state action but found a probability of success on the state human rights claim, noting that visual impairment can only be a bar if it's a bona fide occupational qualification. The court also addressed diversity jurisdiction, dismissing a non-diverse defendant to retain the state claim. Ultimately, the court granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the AHL and its New York franchises from applying Article 13(e) to Neeld within the state.

Disability DiscriminationProfessional HockeyPreliminary InjunctionHuman Rights LawState ActionDiversity JurisdictionOccupational QualificationSports LawIrreparable HarmNew York Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

League of Voluntary Hospitals & Homes v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Workers Union

The court addresses an application for a preliminary injunction against Local 1199, a union planning a three-day strike. The League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of N. Y. sought the injunction following a previous temporary restraining order concerning a one-day strike. The union argued that each planned strike required a new legal proceeding, but the court deemed the strikes "episodic and organically connected." Citing concerns about blocked ingress/egress to hospitals and the union president's threats to "shut down" facilities, the judge found a preliminary injunction necessary under Labor Law § 807 to protect public health and safety. The injunction restrains the union from unlawfully interfering with hospital operations, blocking access, and picketing within certain distances of hospital entrances and emergency rooms.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionStrike ActionUnion ActivityHospital AccessPicketing RegulationsCollective BargainingCivil Disobedience ThreatPublic Health and SafetyIngress Egress Interference
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A. F. v. Spence Chapin Agency

A 16-year-old father, who previously consented to the adoption of his out-of-wedlock infant, sought custody, attempting to revoke his consent. The birth mother had also surrendered the child to Spence Chapin Services for Families and Children, who placed the baby with preadoptive parents. The court examined the validity of the minor father's consent, whether it was statutorily or constitutionally required, and his standing to petition for custody. It found the father's consent invalid due to the agency's insufficient guidance for a minor, but determined his consent was not legally required under Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (e) as he did not meet the criteria for demonstrating paternal interest. Applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the court ultimately denied the father's custody petition, concluding the preadoptive parents were better suited.

Adoption LawChild CustodyMinor Parents' RightsParental ConsentBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawUnmarried FathersRevocation of ConsentAdoption AgenciesLegal Standing
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 346 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