Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ8765034

Regular

May 03, 2017

Darren Langdon vs. New Jersey Devils, Montreal Canadiens, Federal Insurance Company

This case involves a professional hockey player's cumulative injury claim against his former teams, the Montreal Canadiens and New Jersey Devils, and their insurer, Federal Insurance Company. The applicant was hired in California by an earlier team, establishing WCAB jurisdiction despite playing for out-of-state teams later. Federal argued the WCAB lacked jurisdiction over the Montreal and New Jersey employments due to insufficient California contacts, but this was rejected as jurisdiction is based on being hired in California, and the cumulative injury occurred over time. The Board affirmed the finding of jurisdiction and liability, clarifying that employer-specific apportionment issues are addressed in separate proceedings.

Cumulative InjuryProfessional Hockey PlayerJurisdictionFederal Insurance CompanyNew Jersey DevilsMontreal CanadiensLabor Code SectionsApportionmentSubject Matter JurisdictionDue Process

References

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

Case No. ADJ9094930

Regular

Nov 08, 2018

ROBERT STANIFER vs. CHICAGO CUBS; WASHINGTON NATIONALS aka MONTREAL EXPOS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY/CHUBB;BOSTON RED SOX; TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the decision to deny applicant's claim for cumulative trauma injury, finding insufficient connection to California. While applicant claimed to be hired in California by Hiroshima Toyo Carp, that employer is not a party, precluding jurisdiction under Labor Code Section 5305. The WCAB determined that applicant's participation in 12 games in California out of 440 total games over 11 seasons was de minimis and insufficient to overcome defendants' due process objection. Therefore, the minimal contact with California did not justify requiring defendants to litigate the claim in this state.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaCalifornia ContactLabor Code Section 5305Subject Matter JurisdictionContract of HireDue ProcessFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Professional AthleteDuty Days

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Reach v. Pearson

This case involves an automobile accident in Montreal, Quebec, where New Jersey residents Paul and Christina Reach sued New York defendants Paul Pearson, 25/45 Publishing Corp., and Jakel Corp. for negligence. Defendants sought dismissal on grounds of another pending action, indispensable parties, and forum non conveniens. The court denied all motions, ruling that New York law governed the dispute, Quebec's no-fault system did not preclude the New York action, and the unjoined parties were not indispensable. The court also found New York to be a convenient forum given the plaintiffs' residency and the nature of the available remedies.

Automobile AccidentNegligenceChoice of LawForum Non ConveniensIndispensable PartiesPersonal InjuryQuebec Automobile Insurance ActNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesDiversity JurisdictionTort Law

References

Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01856 [192 AD3d 596]

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 25, 2021

Pakniat v. Moor

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which dismissed the plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. The dismissal was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff resided and worked in Montreal, Canada, and failed to demonstrate that the alleged discriminatory conduct had any impact within New York. The court referenced Hoffman v Parade Publs. to reinforce that the HRLs protect state residents or nonresidents working in the state, requiring an in-state impact for jurisdiction. It clarified that legislative revisions to the State HRL did not alter this jurisdictional requirement and that arguments regarding increased remote work and the HRLs' deterrent purpose do not expand the statute's jurisdictional reach. The forum selection clause in the plaintiff's employment contract did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement for these claims.

subject matter jurisdictionsexual harassmentretaliationHuman Rights Lawnonresident claimsNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Lawextraterritorialityremote workemployment contract

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dorfman v. Chemical Bank

The federal district court, presided by Judge Cannella, granted motions to dismiss brought by several defendant banks (Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, Irving Trust Company, Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., and Bank of Montreal) against an unnamed plaintiff. The plaintiff, a debenture holder of Pennco (a subsidiary of Penn Central Transportation Company), alleged a conspiracy where banks funneled funds through Pennco to Penn Central, impairing Pennco's capital. The court dismissed the first two derivative causes of action, brought under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Interstate Commerce Act, for lack of plaintiff's standing as a debenture holder is not considered a 'shareholder' under Rule 23.1 F.R.Civ.P. The third cause of action, based on pendant jurisdiction, was also dismissed following the dismissal of federal claims. Finally, the fourth cause of action, premised on diversity of citizenship, was dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to properly allege Pennco's principal place of business, although leave to replead was granted.

Derivative SuitDebenture HoldersStandingSecurities ActInterstate Commerce ActFraudulent ConveyanceSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity of CitizenshipFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 12(b)(6)

References

Showing 1-6 of 6 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Darren Langdon vs. New Jersey Devils, Montreal Canadiens, Federal Insurance Company

Cumulative InjuryProfessional Hockey PlayerJurisdictionFederal Insurance CompanyNew Jersey DevilsMontreal CanadiensLabor Code SectionsApportionmentSubject Matter JurisdictionDue Process

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

ROBERT STANIFER vs. CHICAGO CUBS; WASHINGTON NATIONALS aka MONTREAL EXPOS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY/CHUBB;BOSTON RED SOX; TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

Reach v. Pearson

Automobile AccidentNegligenceChoice of LawForum Non ConveniensIndispensable PartiesPersonal InjuryQuebec Automobile Insurance ActNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesDiversity JurisdictionTort Law

Pakniat v. Moor

subject matter jurisdictionsexual harassmentretaliationHuman Rights Lawnonresident claimsNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Lawextraterritorialityremote workemployment contract

Dorfman v. Chemical Bank

Derivative SuitDebenture HoldersStandingSecurities ActInterstate Commerce ActFraudulent ConveyanceSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity of CitizenshipFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 12(b)(6)