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

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, A/S/O Mirsan, L.P., D/B/A Sienna Ridge Apartments v. Carmen A. White

This dissenting opinion by Justice Boyd, joined by Justices Willett, Lehrmann, and Devine, disputes the majority's allocation of the burden of proof in a case involving fire damage to a tenant's apartment. The central issue is whether the tenant, Carmen White, or the landlord/insurer, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, bears the burden of proving the cause of the fire under the Texas Property Code. The dissent argues that the landlord has an unwaivable duty to repair unless the tenant caused the damage, and the burden to prove this exception (that the tenant caused the fire) rests with the landlord. The dissent contends that the lease provision requiring the tenant to pay for damages not caused by the landlord's negligence is unenforceable under the Property Code, which prohibits landlords from avoiding their duty to repair conditions affecting health and safety unless the tenant caused them. Since the landlord failed to secure a jury finding that White caused the fire, the dissent believes the court of appeals' decision, which favored the tenant, should have been affirmed.

burden of prooftenant liabilitylandlord dutiesproperty coderesidential leasefire damagecontract enforceabilityaffirmative defensestatutory exceptionsubrogation rights
References
32
Case No. W2011-01234-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2012

Andre Dotson v. Contemporary Media, Inc., d/b/a The Memphis Flyer, and John Branston

This is a libelous defamation case where Appellant Andre Dotson, an incarcerated inmate, sued a newspaper (Contemporary Media, Inc. d/b/a The Memphis Flyer) and its reporter (John Branston) for an article. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellees based on Dotson's failure to pay fees from previous lawsuits, lack of service of process on the newspaper, and the fair reporting privilege. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal based on the inmate litigation act, finding the act was not triggered because Dotson had not filed a uniform affidavit of indigency. It affirmed the dismissal of the newspaper for lack of service. The appellate court also vacated the summary judgment regarding the fair reporting privilege, remanding the case for discovery to allow Dotson an opportunity to develop his arguments. The court declined to award damages for a frivolous appeal.

libeldefamationsummary judgmentin forma pauperisinmate litigationfair reporting privilegeservice of processTennessee Prisoner Litigation Reform Actaffidavit of indigencydiscovery
References
45
Case No. CA 13-01535
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2014

HAUBER-MALOTA, MICHELLE T. v. PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE CO.

The plaintiff, Michelle T. Hauber-Malota, was injured as a passenger in a vehicle operated by a coemployee and owned by their common employer, JMFSC, when it was rear-ended by another vehicle also operated by a coemployee. Her initial personal injury action against the coemployee and the vehicle owner was dismissed based on the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions. Subsequently, she sought supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits from her employer's insurers, Philadelphia Insurance Companies, Tokio Marine Group, and Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The court concluded that because the plaintiff was not "legally entitled to recover damages" from the coemployee due to Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6), she was also not entitled to SUM benefits under her employer's policy.

SUM BenefitsUninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoverageWorkers Compensation LawExclusive RemedyCoemployee LiabilityAutomobile Liability InsuranceContractual ObligationTort LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
13
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02510 [137 AD3d 680]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2016

Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Pension Fund v. Bell

This is a derivative action brought by shareholders of JPMorgan Chase & Co. against its directors and officers, alleging that they approved the sale of subprime mortgages without proper oversight, leading to significant corporate losses. The plaintiffs failed to make a pre-suit demand on the board, arguing that such a demand would be futile. The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the complaint, and the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this dismissal. Applying Delaware law, the Appellate Division found that the plaintiffs did not provide particularized facts sufficient to establish demand futility under either the Aronson test for board action or the Rales test for board inaction, concluding that the board members were disinterested and independent, and their actions were a valid exercise of business judgment.

Shareholder Derivative ActionDemand FutilityBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate GovernanceDelaware LawBoard OversightSubprime MortgagesToxic AssetsCorporate LiabilityDirector Independence
References
14
Case No. ADJ8710981
Regular
Mar 25, 2015

PETER FORSBERG vs. NASHVILLE PREDATORS, COLORADO AVALANCHE, PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reinstated and affirmed its jurisdiction over Peter Forsberg's cumulative injury claim. The WCAB found that California has a legitimate and substantial interest in adjudicating claims for injuries sustained within the state, and Forsberg's work in California was more than "de minimis" to his cumulative trauma injury. This decision reversed a prior ruling that had denied jurisdiction, finding that the defendant did not prove statutory exemption and that due process concerns were not violated. The case was returned for further proceedings, with a dissenting opinion arguing that Forsberg's limited California contacts were insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

Cumulative injuryProfessional hockey playerWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardJurisdictionFederal Insurance CompanyColorado AvalancheNashville PredatorsPhiladelphia FlyersDe minimis connectionLegitimate interest
References
23
Case No. ADJ8196440
Regular
May 29, 2015

ADAM BURT vs. CAROLINA HURRICANES, ATLANTA THRESHERS, PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves the insurer of a former employer of a professional hockey player seeking reconsideration of a prior WCAB decision. The WCAB had reversed a judge's finding that the applicant's California contacts were de minimis and that California jurisdiction should not be exercised. The insurer argued that the injury did not legally occur in California and that imposing liability would deny due process. The WCAB denied the petition for reconsideration, upholding its prior decision. One commissioner dissented, preferring to reinstate the original judge's findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Industrial InjuryProfessional Hockey PlayerDe Minimis ContactsJurisdictionDue ProcessDissenting OpinionOpinion and Order DenyingFindings and Order
References
1
Case No. ADJ17606447
Regular
Nov 10, 2025

Zachary Penprase vs. Philadelphia Phillies, Fargo-Moorehead Redhawks

Applicant Zachary Penprase seeks reconsideration of an August 14, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) where a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found a lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants Philadelphia Phillies and Fargo-Moorehead Redhawks concerning Penprase's industrial injury claims. Penprase argues that personal jurisdiction exists because he was recruited and signed contracts with both teams in California. The Appeals Board has granted the petition for reconsideration, acknowledging the need for further review of the merits and the entire record. A final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending this further review.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPersonal JurisdictionProfessional AthleteContract of HireForum StateMinimum ContactsGeneral AppearanceWaiverRecord DevelopmentReconsideration
References
25
Case No. ADJ8522603
Regular
Jun 05, 2017

RUSSELL GARY vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, GULF/TRAVELERS, NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, ACE USA

This case concerns a former professional football player seeking workers' compensation benefits for cumulative injuries. The applicant was found to have sustained industrial injuries to several body parts while playing for the New Orleans Saints and Philadelphia Eagles. While the award for permanent disability and future medical treatment was affirmed, the Board rescinded the finding of one year of temporary total disability. The Board found that the applicant's testimony indicated retirement due to failure to secure further employment, not physical inability to work, and that medical opinions relied upon by the judge were based on incorrect assumptions regarding the applicant's ability to continue playing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPhiladelphia EaglesGulf TravelersNew Orleans SaintsACE USAADJ8522603Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationtemporary disability indemnitypermanent disabilityfuture medical treatment
References
2
Case No. ADJ9113575
Regular
Jul 26, 2018

DOUGLAS FAVELL vs. COLORADO ROCKIES/NEW JERSEY DEVILS, TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS, PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, OKLAHOMA CITY BLAZERS, SAN FRANCISCO SEALS, PINNACOL ASSURANCE

This case involved a professional hockey player's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained across multiple teams from 1965-1979. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Toronto Maple Leafs' petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that the Colorado Rockies, and their insurer Pinnacol Assurance, were exempt from California workers' compensation laws under Labor Code section 3600.5(b) due to reciprocal exemptions with Colorado law at the time of employment. Consequently, Toronto was held liable as the next employer over which California had jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryProfessional Hockey PlayerPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600.5(b)Labor Code Section 5500.5(a)ExemptedReciprocal StatuteColorado Revised Statute
References
3
Case No. ADJ7598160
Regular
Nov 19, 2014

MAURICE JOHNSON vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, FAIRMONT PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a lower decision, finding California lacked jurisdiction over a professional football player's cumulative trauma claim against the Philadelphia Eagles. The Board held that playing only two games in California did not create a sufficient connection to the injury to warrant applying California law, citing *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*. The applicant's limited physical presence and routine pre/post-game treatment in California were deemed de minimis. Therefore, the applicant took nothing on his California WCAB claim.

CIGAPhiladelphia EaglesReliance Insurance Companycumulative traumaprofessional football playerjurisdictionFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)administrative law judgepermanent disabilityapportionment
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 25 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