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. ADJ7597520
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

MAZIO ROYSTER vs. NFL EUROPE, TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior ruling that it has jurisdiction over an applicant's injury claim against NFL Europe. This decision was based on the finding that the applicant's contract of hire was formed in California, even though the injury occurred out-of-state. The Board also held that any forum selection clause in the contract would not be enforced as it contravenes California public policy favoring workers' compensation rights when the contract of hire is made within the state. The WCAB's reasoning relied heavily on statutory provisions and case law establishing California's jurisdiction when the contract formation occurs in California.

WCABNFL EuropeTIG Specialty Insurance CompanyZenith Insuranceindustrial injuryprofessional athletecontract of hireforum selection clausejurisdictionpublic policy
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. National Football League

Orlando Brown, a former NFL player, and his wife Mira Brown, sued the National Football League (NFL) for personal injuries. Brown's career ended after an NFL referee negligently threw a weighted penalty flag, striking him in the eye. The case was removed from New York state court to federal court. The NFL moved to dismiss and compel arbitration, arguing the claims were preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA and related to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Plaintiffs cross-moved to remand, asserting their claims were independent state law torts. The Court denied the NFL's motion, finding the duties alleged were general state law duties, not solely derived from the CBA. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court.

Personal InjuryNegligenceFederal PreemptionLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)ArbitrationRemand to State CourtDuty of CareVicarious LiabilityAssumption of Risk
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2005

National Football League v. Vigilant Insurance

This appeal addresses whether a former college football player's antitrust lawsuit against the NFL, regarding its draft eligibility rule, falls under the employment practices exclusion of an insurance policy issued by Vigilant. The court determined that the exclusion was open to a reasonable interpretation that would make it inapplicable to the antitrust claim. As a result, the trial court's dismissal of the complaint was reversed. The court emphasized that the exclusion, primarily focused on employment law claims and workplace torts, did not clearly and unambiguously extend to the NFL's liability when not acting as an employer in an antitrust context. Consequently, any ambiguity in the policy's scope was resolved in favor of the insured, the NFL.

Insurance Coverage LitigationEmployment Practices ExclusionAntitrust Law ChallengeNFL Draft RulesPolicy AmbiguityContract InterpretationDeclaratory ReliefWrongful Deprivation of Career OpportunityStatutory ConstructionEjusdem Generis Principle
References
8
Case No. ADJ6985663
Regular
Nov 09, 2012

ROME DOUGLAS vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., WORLD LEAGUE OF AMERICAN FOOTBALL, TIG INSURANCE CO., RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., GULF INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns an applicant who sustained numerous injuries, including to his neck, back, and head, resulting in 84% permanent disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied TIG Insurance's petition for reconsideration regarding jurisdiction over the applicant's claim against NFL Europe. The WCAB found that the applicant, a California resident, entered into contracts of hire with NFL Europe via telephone in California before traveling to training camps and signing written agreements out of state. This established WCAB jurisdiction over the applicant's out-of-state injury, despite subsequent events like physical examinations and contract signings occurring outside California.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and Ordercumulative traumapermanent disabilityNFL Europecontract of hireout-of-state injuryjurisdictionLabor Code section 5305
References
0
Case No. ADJ7106696
Regular
Oct 09, 2012

JAMAL CLARK vs. SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered by CMS, NFL EUROPE, TIG INSURANCE, Administered by REM

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, *Jamal Clark v. Seattle Seahawks*, involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a July 16, 2012, award. The Board has granted this petition to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues presented. The Board believes this is necessary to thoroughly understand the record and render a just decision. Pending the Decision After Reconsideration, all filings must be submitted in writing directly to the Commissioners' office in San Francisco, not to district offices or through e-filing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemVan Nuys District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ10232171
Regular
Apr 10, 2017

HERMAN O'BERRY vs. WORLD LEAGUE OF AMERICAN FOOTBALL aka NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE EUROPE (NFL EUROPE), ST. LOUIS RAMS, FAIRMONT PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY (TIG)

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for cumulative injury filed by a former professional football player against his former employers and their insurer. The primary issue was the statute of limitations, specifically the date of injury under Labor Code Section 5412, which is when the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related. The Board granted reconsideration to clarify this date, finding that the applicant's filing of his claim application on December 17, 2015, was the earliest documented evidence of his knowledge of the connection between his employment and his cumulative injury, establishing this as the date of injury. The employer's exemption from providing notice under Section 3600.5(e) did not alter this determination regarding the applicant's actual knowledge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNFL EuropeSt. Louis RamsLabor Code section 5405Labor Code section 5412cumulative injurydate of injurystatute of limitationspetition for reconsiderationApplication for Adjudication of Claim
References
16
Case No. ADJ6676904
Regular
May 26, 2010

LOUIS BULLARD vs. CLEVELAND BROWNS, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, Baltimore Ravens

This case involves a professional athlete claiming workers' compensation injuries from two NFL teams. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal after the applicant's death during the pendency of the case. The trial date was vacated, and the matter was returned to the trial level for a priority conference. This is due to the need to address accrued benefits payable to dependents and to potentially identify and join them as parties.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardProfessional AthleteMandatory Settlement ConferenceContinued to TrialJoinder as Party-DefendantFurther DiscoveryApplicant's DeathAccrued and Unpaid BenefitsSurviving Dependents
References
1
Case No. ADJ7337820
Regular
Apr 07, 2014

JOHN BOOTY vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, PMA GROUP, Arizona Cardinals, Fairmont Premier Insurance/Zenith Insurance Company

The applicant, a professional football player, claimed cumulative industrial injury against multiple NFL teams, including the New York Giants and the Arizona Cardinals. The applicant requested to dismiss the Arizona Cardinals with prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the dismissal to be "without prejudice." This preserves the New York Giants' potential right to seek contribution from the Cardinals should they be found liable for benefits. The Board affirmed the applicant's right to choose which defendants to litigate against.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Party DefendantsCumulative InjuryProfessional Football PlayerNational Football LeagueJurisdictionLiabilityDate of InjuryCompromise & Release Agreement
References
1
Case No. ADJ11706407
Regular
Apr 15, 2025

Matthew Hatchette vs. Oakland Raiders, TIG/Fairmont Premier Insurance Company, Jacksonville Jaguars, ACE American Insurance Company, New York Jets, USF&G, Chubb, Pacific Employers Insurance

This case concerns Matthew Hatchette, a former professional football player, and his claims of continuous trauma injuries against multiple NFL teams and their insurers. Defendant Jacksonville Jaguars filed a Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) findings regarding jurisdiction and the applicability of res judicata. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition to conduct a thorough review of the factual and legal issues, thereby deferring a final decision on the merits. The Board's decision also addressed the timeliness of the petition under the recently amended Labor Code section 5909.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMatthew HatchetteOakland RaidersJacksonville JaguarsNew York JetsTIG/Fairmont Premier Insurance CompanyChubbUSF&GGallagher Bassett ServicesZenith Insurance Company
References
14
Case No. ADJ6627095
Regular
Jun 13, 2014

, CHARLIE GARNER, vs. , TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; OAKLAND RAIDERS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board rescinded an arbitrator's decision and ruled that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are not entitled to contribution from the Oakland Raiders. The applicant, a professional football player, sustained a cumulative injury during his NFL career, with the key issue being the relevant Labor Code section 5500.5 one-year liability period. The Board determined that the applicant's last date of injurious exposure, including rehabilitation and training, extended to his termination by the Buccaneers on August 30, 2005, thus placing only Tampa Bay within the liability period. Consequently, the Buccaneers' petition for contribution from the Raiders was denied.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for ContributionLabor Code Section 5500.5Cumulative InjuryDate of InjuryLast Injurious ExposureTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityInjured Reserve
References
8
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