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

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

Claim of Houda v. Niagara Frontier Hockey

The Workers' Compensation Board granted employers' requests for reimbursement from injured professional hockey players' schedule loss of use awards, reversing a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision. The employers had continued full salary payments to the players while they were not playing, considering these as payments 'in a like manner as wages' under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The claimants appealed, arguing their salary payments were for services rendered while injured, not compensation. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that denying reimbursement would unjustly provide double benefits to the employees and that the employers did not receive the primary contractual service from the injured players.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementSchedule Loss of UseSalary ContinuationProfessional AthletesHockey PlayersAdvance Payments of CompensationPayments in Like Manner as WagesDouble BenefitsUnjust Enrichment
References
11
Case No. ADJ8501790
Regular
Jul 29, 2015

Kelly Chase vs. St. Louis Blues Hockey Club, Federal Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior finding of industrial injury for a professional hockey player against the St. Louis Blues. The WCAB found insufficient connection to California for jurisdiction, citing the player's limited games in the state compared to his overall career. This decision followed the precedent set in *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*, which requires a legitimate and substantial connection to the state for jurisdiction. The WCAB concluded that 21 games out of 485 did not meet this standard for a cumulative injury claim.

WCABSt. Louis Blues Hockey ClubFederal Insurance CompanyADJ8501790Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationcumulative industrial injuryprofessional hockey playersubject matter jurisdictionstatute of limitationssubstantial medical evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ10184700
Regular
Nov 29, 2017

JONATHAN PARKER vs. INDY FUEL HOCKEY, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant insurance company seeking reconsideration of a WCAB decision finding jurisdiction over a professional hockey player's injury claim. The defendant argued the WCAB lacked personal jurisdiction, but the Board denied reconsideration. The defendant waived its objection to personal jurisdiction by failing to timely raise it and instead engaging in discovery and litigating subject matter jurisdiction. Subsequent actions, such as filing a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed and participating in hearings without specifying a special appearance for personal jurisdiction, constituted a general appearance. Therefore, the WCJ's original decision finding jurisdiction was affirmed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndy Fuel HockeyGreat Divide Insurance CompanyADJ10184700Petition for ReconsiderationPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionLabor Code 3600.5(a)Labor Code 5301Labor Code 5305
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Professional Career Center, Inc.

The Professional Career Center, Inc., offering real estate education, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's assessment for additional unemployment insurance contributions. The assessment stemmed from a determination that the Center's teachers were employees, not independent contractors. Despite a consulting agreement, the court found substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. This was based on the Center's control over hiring, payment, quality, student recruitment, tuition, scheduling, and curriculum adherence. The court concluded that these factors supported the finding, affirming the decision against Professional Career Center, Inc.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorProfessional EducationReal Estate LicensingLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContributionsAudit
References
3
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

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. CA 12-01143
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

PROFESSIONAL, CLERICAL, TECHNICAL, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, concerning an arbitration award. The petitioner, Professional, Clerical, Technical, Employees Association, sought to vacate an arbitration award, which the Supreme Court, Erie County, initially granted. The respondent, Board of Education for Buffalo City School District, appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying the petition to vacate and granting the cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award. The court concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding employee qualifications for new positions was neither irrational nor an exceeding of authority. The arbitrator's decision upheld the supervisor's discretion in assessing qualifications beyond minimum requirements for Assistant Management Analyst positions.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewLabor LawAppellate DivisionSupervisor DiscretionEmployee QualificationsContract InterpretationNew York LawSchool District
References
15
Case No. 02 Civ. 8428(DC)
Regular Panel Decision

Professional Sound Services, Inc. v. Guzzi

Plaintiff Professional Sound Services, Inc. (PSS) sued Gotham Sound and Communications, Inc., Roland J. Guzzi, and Peter Schneider, alleging product disparagement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, along with several state law claims. PSS contended that Guzzi made disparaging statements about PSS to its customers and that Gotham's use of the letter "S" in its inventory codes constituted trademark infringement of PSS's purported "S" mark. The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Lanham Act claims. The court found that PSS failed to demonstrate widespread dissemination for its disparagement claim and that its "S" mark lacked inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning necessary for trademark protection. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Lanham ActProduct DisparagementFalse Designation of OriginTrademark InfringementSummary JudgmentCommercial SpeechDistinctivenessSecondary MeaningLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid Factors
References
46
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07224 [165 AD3d 1558]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

Healthcare Professionals Ins. Co. v. Parentis

This case involves an appeal regarding a declaratory judgment action initiated by Healthcare Professionals Insurance Company (HPI) against Michael A. Parentis and others. The dispute arises from a prior medical malpractice verdict against Parentis totaling $8.6 million, which exceeded his combined $2.3 million primary and excess insurance policies from Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC) and HPI. Parentis alleged bad faith against both insurers for failing to settle the underlying action within policy limits. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to HPI and MLMIC, dismissing Parentis' bad faith claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether both HPI and MLMIC acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations, especially during jury deliberations.

Insurance LawBad Faith Insurance ClaimMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSettlement NegotiationsExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceJury DeliberationsDuty to Settle
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 485 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