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. ADJ6970905
Regular
May 23, 2017

KEVIN CORY WITHROW vs. ST. LOUIS RAMS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the applicant sustained a cumulative industrial injury while playing for the St. Louis Rams. The defendant argued the WCAB lacked subject matter jurisdiction, but the Board affirmed jurisdiction, finding the applicant was hired in California by the St. Louis Rams via a telephone acceptance of an offer made while he was in the state. The WCAB returned the case to the trial level for express findings on the defendant's claim for credit under Labor Code section 5005, related to prior settlements with other teams.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaProfessional Football PlayerSubject Matter JurisdictionContract of HireLabor Code Section 5005Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent Disability
References
22
Case No. ADJ3190591 (SFO 0510866) ADJ9088362 ADJ9524437
Regular
Nov 21, 2014

ISAIAH KACYVENSKI vs. OAKLAND RAIDERS; ACE USA Administered by ESIS; ST. LOUIS RAMS and GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY Administered by BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGER, LLC

This case concerns a workers' compensation award against the St. Louis Rams and the Oakland Raiders for an injured professional athlete. The Rams petitioned for reconsideration, arguing they were improperly included in a joint award based on stipulations they were not a party to, violating their due process rights. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the Rams' due process claim had merit. The award was amended to be solely against the Oakland Raiders, as the Rams had elected not to proceed and their employment liability was not established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint AwardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5500.5(c)Stipulations with Request for Awardcumulative injuryprofessional athletepermanent disabilitydue processexcess of WCJ's powers
References
3
Case No. ADJ7803842
Regular
May 03, 2016

RAONAL SMITH vs. ST. LOUIS RAMS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding of jurisdiction over the applicant's cumulative industrial injury claim against the St. Louis Rams. The defendant insurer argued California lacked sufficient connection to the injury, citing a previous case. The Board rescinded the ALJ's decision because the record was unclear regarding the evidence considered, particularly a deposition transcript that the ALJ indicated would be reviewed. The case is returned to the trial level for the ALJ to clarify the record, address the deposition transcript and related objections, and rule on the contention that the applicant was hired in California.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSt. Louis RamsGreat Divide Insurance Companycumulative industrial injuryprofessional athleteoffensive linebackersubject matter jurisdictionFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ's Findings of Fact
References
4
Case No. ADJ9086089
Regular
Jul 14, 2015

**ADAM TIMMERMAN,** vs. **ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC; GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY; TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,**

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Adam Timmerman's claim for workers' compensation benefits against the St. Louis Rams and their insurers. The WCAB found that Timmerman's participation in 14 games in California, out of 189 total games in his career, did not establish a sufficient connection to California to justify the application of California workers' compensation law. This decision followed the precedent set in *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*, which requires a legitimate and substantial connection between the injury and the state for jurisdiction. The majority affirmed the WCJ's findings, concluding that California lacked a substantial interest in adjudicating this claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSt. Louis RamsTravelers Indemnity CompanyWCAB jurisdictionProfessional athlete injuryCumulative industrial injuryCalifornia workers' compensation lawFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Legitimate and substantial connectionDe minimis
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2014

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merchandise Corp.

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. sued Sunny Merchandise Corp., Louis Valentin Eyewear, and Chin Zong Tsai for federal and state trademark infringement and counterfeiting related to sunglasses. The court granted Louis Vuitton's motion for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement, finding strong marks, similarity, and Sunny's bad faith, and denied it on counterfeiting claims. Defendants' cross-motion was denied on counterfeiting but granted for claims against Gene Tsai due to insufficient evidence of his direct involvement. The court also ruled on the admissibility of expert testimonies and redaction requests.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingLanham ActSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyBrandingMarketingConsumer ConfusionDilutionGoodwill
References
92
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01290 [180 AD3d 590]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2020

Reyes v. Roman Catholic Church of St. Raymond

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County. The case involved plaintiff Felipe Reyes, a special employee of The Roman Catholic Church of St. Raymond, whose Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed based on Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6). The court also denied summary judgment on St. Raymond's third-party contractual indemnification claim against ABM Janitorial Services-Northeast, Inc., due to an unresolved issue of fact regarding ABM's negligence. The decision concluded that Reyes's claim against St. Raymond was barred due to his special employee status.

Special Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6)Contractual IndemnificationThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewWorkplace InjuryPremises LiabilityNegligence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mosher v. St. Joseph's Villa

Dennis B. Mosher was injured when he fell from a ladder while clearing land for the construction of a parking lot and building owned by St. Joseph’s Villa. He and his wife filed an action against St. Joseph’s Villa and Seneca Roadways, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against both defendants and the negligence cause of action against St. Joseph’s Villa. On appeal, the order was modified. The Appellate Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against St. Joseph’s Villa, determining that tree removal was incidental to construction. However, the dismissal of the common-law negligence claim against St. Joseph’s Villa and the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Seneca Roadways was affirmed, as St. Joseph’s Villa did not supervise the work and Seneca Roadways was not an owner or responsible contractor.

Ladder FallSite PreparationConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Owner LiabilityContractor LiabilityCommon-Law NegligenceAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. James Mechanical, Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance

St. James Mechanical, Inc., an insured party, initiated an action against its insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, and an affiliated carrier, seeking a judgment declaring their obligation to defend and indemnify St. James in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. This underlying action stemmed from an accident involving a worker hired by St. James for renovations at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers. Royal disclaimed coverage, citing St. James's two-year delay in providing notice of the accident, contending it failed to meet the 'as soon as practicable' clause in the commercial general liability policy. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the insurance carriers' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing St. James's complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that St. James successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether its delay in notice was reasonably based on a good faith belief in nonliability, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentPersonal injuryDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyGood faith belief in nonliabilityCondition precedentAppellate review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elie v. St. Barnabas Hospital

The case involves consolidated appeals where defendant St. Barnabas Hospital challenged the denial of its motions to dismiss complaints filed by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, incarcerated individuals at Rikers Island Jail, allege negligence and violations of their civil rights under 42 USC § 1983. They claim that St. Barnabas, which contracted with the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation to provide medical care, implemented institutional policies to discourage costly treatments, leading to negligent care and deliberate indifference to their serious health needs. The appellate court affirmed the denial of St. Barnabas's motions to dismiss, ruling that the complaints adequately state causes of action for negligence and civil rights violations, and that St. Barnabas, as a private healthcare provider, is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Civil Rights42 USC 1983Deliberate IndifferenceInmate Medical CareNegligenceRikers IslandHospital LiabilityMotion to DismissQualified ImmunityEighth Amendment
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. Louis v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

Plaintiff Nativita St. Louis sued her former employer and supervisors for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims. Plaintiff alleged a hostile work environment and wrongful termination from Woodhull Hospital after complaining about harassment. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Title VII claims as time-barred or lacking sufficient evidence for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation. The § 1983 claims were also dismissed for similar reasons or as time-barred. The state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1983Gender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentFederal Civil RightsEmployment Law
References
81
Showing 1-10 of 557 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