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. 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In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board rescinded an arbitrator's decision and ruled that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are not entitled to contribution from the Oakland Raiders.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
Case No. ADJ8073837
Regular
Nov 17, 2015

Sean Love vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers

This case concerns whether the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are exempt from California's workers' compensation laws for an injury sustained by a former player. The WCJ initially ruled against the Buccaneers, finding that Florida's reciprocity statute, which would allow for an exemption under Labor Code § 3600.5(b), was not in effect at the time of the player's work in California. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the conditions for exemption must exist at the time of injury and Florida's law cannot retroactively apply to alter California's jurisdiction. A dissenting opinion argued that the reciprocity statute's validity at the time of claim filing, not injury, should determine exemption, citing a prior Appeals Board case.

Labor Code 3600.5(b)extraterritorial provisionsreciprocity statuteFlorida Statute 440.094self-insuredcumulative injurytemporary employmentWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCAB jurisdictionexclusive remedy
References
3
Case No. ADJ2007566
Regular
Dec 10, 2012

ALVIN HARPER vs. TAMPA BAY BUCANEERS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is granting this petition. This action is being taken to allow for a more thorough review of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB needs this additional time and potential further proceedings to ensure a just and reasoned decision is issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationAlvin HarperTampa Bay BuccaneersPermissibly Self-InsuredStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned Decision
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1987

Ebbecke v. Bay View Environmental Services, Inc.

Charles Ebbecke suffered severe injuries from a chemical splash while waste was being loaded into a tanker. He initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Bay View Environmental Services, Inc., the company responsible for loading. Bay View subsequently impleaded Grumman Aerospace Corp., Ebbecke's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. Grumman, in turn, claimed indemnification from Bay View under a purchase order contract. The Supreme Court dismissed Grumman's indemnification claim. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the contractual clause did not explicitly demonstrate an "unmistakable intent" for Bay View to indemnify Grumman for Grumman's own negligence, especially considering ambiguities are resolved against the drafter, Grumman.

Contractual IndemnificationPersonal InjuryThird-Party ClaimNegligenceContract InterpretationTypewritten vs. Printed ProvisionsRisk AllocationUnmistakable IntentAmbiguity in ContractAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ8627409
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

PAUL PIUROWSKI vs. DALLAS COWBOYS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, MIAMI DOLPHINS, MULTI-LINE CLAIMS SERVICES, INC., TAMPA BAY BANDITS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, SUMMIT CONSULTING LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration regarding a cumulative trauma injury claim filed by Paul Piuroswki. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that defendants Tampa Bay Bandits and Associated Industries of Florida Self-Insurers Fund (AIFSIF) waived their personal jurisdiction defense by failing to timely litigate the issue over nearly two years while participating in the trial on the merits. However, the Board deferred the entry of an award. Further proceedings are required to determine the proper liable entity or entities and resolve issues related to insurance coverage under Labor Code section 5500.5.

Workers CompensationPersonal JurisdictionWaiverGeneral AppearanceSpecial AppearanceNotice of AppearancePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 5500.5Insurance Coverage
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02297 [216 AD3d 617]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Curry v. Town of Oyster Bay

Edward Curry, Sr. commenced an action against the Town of Oyster Bay, O.B. Sanitation Dept., and Mike Del, among others, to recover damages for assault and battery. The claims arose from an incident on January 6, 2019, and subsequent conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The Supreme Court initially denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting dismissal of claims against O.B. Sanitation Dept. and Mike Del related to the January 6, 2019 incident, and dismissing all claims arising after January 6, 2019, against all appellants due to an inadequate notice of claim. The Supreme Court's decision to deny dismissal against the Town of Oyster Bay for the January 6, 2019 incident was affirmed based on a theory of vicarious liability.

Assault and BatteryVicarious LiabilityNotice of ClaimMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Municipal LiabilityAppellate ReviewProcedural LawTortsPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. ADJ1889994
Regular
Oct 28, 2010

DARRELL FULLINGTON vs. TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision because the applicant's case has been settled. The Board rescinded the prior findings and award and returned the matter to the trial level. This allows the judge to approve the settlement, or if not approved, the original decision can be reinstated and reconsidered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRescinded DecisionTrial Level ProceedingsFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative JudgeSettlement ApprovalFurther ProceedingsPetition for ReconsiderationDefendant's Letter
References
0
Case No. ADJ9088316
Regular
Sep 20, 2022

FRANKLIN OLIVER vs. TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, ESIS

This case involves a former professional athlete claiming permanent total disability due to a progressive brain injury. The Appeals Board affirmed a 98% permanent disability award but will reserve jurisdiction for future reassessment due to the insidious and progressive nature of the applicant's condition, as per the *Jackson* doctrine. The Board rejected the claim for conclusive presumption of permanent total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4), finding insufficient evidence of permanent mental incapacity based on medical opinions. Further, temporary disability benefits were denied as the applicant was employed post-football career until retirement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFranklin OliverTampa Bay BuccaneersESISAdjudication Number ADJ9088316ReconsiderationFindings and AwardProfessional AthleteOccupational Group 590California Subject Matter Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Town of Oyster Bay

The court considered several factors when determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, including the petitioner's reasonable excuse, the public corporation's actual knowledge of the claim's essential facts, and potential prejudice to the corporation. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse, offering only a conclusory statement about attorney error. Additionally, the petitioner could not establish that the Town of Oyster Bay had actual knowledge of the accident, as an oral report and a workers' compensation claim form were deemed insufficient. The petitioner also did not refute the Town's assertion of prejudice due to the over eight-month delay in filing, especially given subsequent alterations to the accident details. Consequently, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Late notice of claimGeneral Municipal LawActual knowledgePrejudiceReasonable excuseWorkers' compensation claimSlip and fallNegligenceSupreme CourtTown of Oyster Bay
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 160 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