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. ADJ7222283
Regular
Feb 04, 2014

Gregory Montgomery vs. Baltimore Ravens, Tennessee Titans, Travelers Insurance Co.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award, finding that California's workers' compensation jurisdiction was exempted for the applicant's temporary work in California for the Baltimore Ravens. The WCAB determined that under former Labor Code section 3600.5(b), the Ravens met the requirements for exemption by providing Maryland workers' compensation coverage, which included extraterritorial provisions for employee work in other states. The Board also found that Maryland law reciprocally recognized California's extraterritorial provisions and exempted California employers. Consequently, the applicant's claim against the Baltimore Ravens was dismissed.

Labor Code section 3600.5(b)extraterritorial coveragereciprocityself-insured employerMaryland Workers' Compensation Commissiontemporary employmentprofessional football playercumulative traumaoccupational diseasestatute of limitations
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bianco v. Board of Trustees of Local 816 Labor & Management Pension Trust

The plaintiff, an employee between 1952 and 1975 under the jurisdictions of Local 816, Local 852, and Local 202 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, sought disability pension payments from their respective pension funds after becoming totally disabled in 1975. The action, brought under ERISA, involved the interpretation of 'National Reciprocal Agreement' and 'Local Reciprocal Agreement' which aim to provide pensions for members whose employment spans multiple local unions. The defendants denied the plaintiff's application, arguing ineligibility due to 'break in service' provisions and the interpretation of 'related plans.' The court found no genuine issues of material fact and concluded that the plaintiff met all eligibility requirements under the plans, including the terminal Local 202 plan, for partial or pro rata pensions. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff.

Employee Retirement Income Security ActERISAPension BenefitsDisability PensionSummary JudgmentReciprocal AgreementTeamstersLocal UnionsService CreditsPlan Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n Local 202 v. Board of Trustees of the Plastering Industry Welfare & Pension Trust Funds

This case addresses a dispute between two union locals, Local 202 and Local 60, both affiliated with the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association. Following Local 60's termination of a reciprocal agreement that facilitated the exchange of benefit contributions for members working outside their home jurisdiction, Local 202 sued, alleging violations of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and ERISA. The court found that Local 60's refusal to transfer contributions created a 'structural defect' in its benefit plans, which prevented Local 202 members from receiving benefits earned by their labor within Local 60's jurisdiction. Citing the 'sole and exclusive benefit' provision of the LMRA, the court concluded that reciprocity was legally required to prevent unjust enrichment. Consequently, the court granted Local 202's motion for summary judgment and denied Local 60's.

Union DisputeBenefit FundsEmployee BenefitsReciprocal AgreementLabor Management Relations ActERISAStructural DefectSummary JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentInter-union Agreement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1990

Trump Village Section 3, Inc. v. Sinrod

The case involves a dissenting opinion regarding a landlord-tenant dispute over an anti-pet provision in a cooperative building. Judge Friedmann dissents, arguing that the defendants, the Sinrods, openly and notoriously harbored their dog, Coco, for seven months, thereby leading the plaintiff cooperative to waive its anti-pet policy under New York City's "Pet Law." Despite the plaintiff's claim of late awareness, the judge found the evidence of frequent public dog walking compelling. The dissent concludes that ruling against the defendants would impose an unreasonable burden on tenants and defeat the purpose of the Pet Law, especially since no nuisance was cited. Therefore, the judge advocates for reversing the prior order and dismissing the complaint.

Pet LawWaiverNo-Pet PolicyOpen and Notorious HarboringCooperative HousingApartment RegulationsNew York City Administrative CodeHousing DisputeTenant RightsLandlord-Tenant Law
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03046 [238 AD3d 998]
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2025

Gaudreau v. Cucuzzo

The plaintiff, David Gaudreau, appealed an order granting summary judgment to Randall Provisions, Inc., dismissing the complaint against it. The personal injury action arose from a motor vehicle collision involving the plaintiff and Vincent N. Cucuzzo, who worked for Randall. The central legal question was whether Cucuzzo was an employee or an independent contractor, crucial for establishing Randall's vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Supreme Court had initially found Cucuzzo to be an independent contractor and granted summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, determining that Randall failed to present sufficient evidence to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding Cucuzzo's employment status, noting conflicting evidence on control and compensation.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentMotor Vehicle CollisionPersonal InjuriesTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewEmployment Law
References
15
Case No. G072 9015
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

Matter of Lozowski v. The Wiz

Claimant Shannon D. Crawford sustained a back injury on June 29, 2022, while working for the Village of Sidney. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge previously established an average weekly wage and awarded benefits. The employer, Village of Sidney, and their carrier, New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal, appealed, contending the average weekly wage was incorrectly calculated by including wages from a second, dissimilar concurrent employment under WCL § 14(3). The Board Panel found that the Workers' Compensation Law Judge erred in combining wages from dissimilar employments under WCL § 14(3). Consequently, the Board Panel reversed the prior decision regarding the average weekly wage and restored the case to the trial calendar for recalculation of the average weekly wage and further proceedings on claimant's attachment to the labor market and degree of disability.

Workers' Compensation Law § 14(3)Average Weekly WageConcurrent EmploymentWage CalculationBoard PanelReversalTrial CalendarLabor MarketDisability Assessment
References
5
Case No. ADJ2295331 (ANA 0397551)
En Banc
Jun 18, 2013

Wesley Carroll vs. Cincinnati Bengals, New Orleans Saints, Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation, Travelers Insurance

The Appeals Board held that under Labor Code § 3600.5(b), an employee hired outside California is exempt from the state's workers' compensation laws if they are temporarily in the state for work, the employer provides coverage from another state, and that state has reciprocal exemption provisions, leading to the dismissal of the Cincinnati Bengals from the case.

WCABEn BancReconsiderationLabor Code § 3600.5(b)ExemptionExtraterritorial ProvisionsOhio Workers' CompensationSelf-Insured EmployerTemporary EmploymentCumulative Injury
References
51
Case No. CA 10-02172
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

NEW YORK SCHOOLS INSURANCE RECIP, MTR. OF

The petitioner, New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied its petition for a permanent stay of arbitration. Respondent Patricia Armitage sought arbitration after the petitioner denied her claim for no-fault insurance benefits. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the dispute involving the insurer's liability to pay first-party benefits is a matter for arbitration under Insurance Law § 5106 [b]. The court also rejected the petitioner's contention that the offset for workers' compensation benefits exceeding the monthly limit is not arbitrable and that the denial of a stay of arbitration denied its right to a loss-transfer claim from proposed additional respondents.

No-fault insuranceArbitrationWorkers' compensation offsetFirst-party benefitsAppellate reviewInsurance LawStay of arbitrationLoss-transfer claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Skyline, Inc. v. Empire State Building Co.

New York Skyline Inc. (Skyline) appealed a Bankruptcy Court judgment regarding a lease dispute with its landlord, ESB. The District Court, after vacating the initial judgment due to jurisdictional issues and remanding, is now reviewing the Bankruptcy Court's proposed findings as findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appeal centered on two provisions: the "Electricity Provision" concerning utility billing methodology and the "Protocol Provision" which restricted Skyline's employees from receiving commissions for sales "near the Building". The District Court accepted the Bankruptcy Court's findings on the Electricity Provision, ruling in favor of ESB. However, the District Court rejected the Bankruptcy Court's interpretation of "near the Building" in the Protocol Provision, finding that ESB had not proven its broader definition and thus limiting the scope of any potential injunction against Skyline.

Bankruptcy AppealLease DisputeContract InterpretationElectricity BillingSales CommissionsGeographic RestrictionDemand (Electricity)Connected LoadJudicial ReviewLandlord-Tenant Law
References
27
Case No. ADJ6836629
Regular
Oct 01, 2013

EVERSON WALLS vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS fka CLEVELAND BROWNS, NEW YORK GIANTS, PMA INSURANCE GROUP c/o GALLAGHER BASSETT and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA c/o CHARTIS CLAIMS INC., DALLAS COWBOYS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Everson Walls' workers' compensation claim against the Cleveland Browns (now Baltimore Ravens) for an injury sustained while playing professional football. The Board found that Walls was only temporarily employed in California and that the Browns, as a self-insured Ohio employer, provided coverage under Ohio law, which reciprocates California's extraterritorial provisions. Consequently, the Browns are exempted from California workers' compensation law under Labor Code §3600.5(b), and are therefore dismissed from the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code §3600.5(b)National Football LeagueNFLProfessional Football PlayerCumulative Trauma InjuryTemporary Employee ExemptionExtraterritorial CoverageOhio Bureau of Workers' CompensationSelf-Insured Employer
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,360 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