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. ADJ3250254 (ANA 0403409)
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

TROY SADOWSKI vs. CINCINNATI BENGALS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a WCJ's decision finding no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's claim. The player was hired and covered by Ohio workers' compensation, and his presence in California was temporary for work. This temporary presence, combined with Ohio's reciprocal extraterritorial provisions, exempted the parties from California's workers' compensation law per Labor Code section 3600.5(b). The Board relied on its en banc decision in *Carroll v. Cincinnati Bengals* which established these exemption criteria.

Subject Matter JurisdictionLabor Code Section 3600.5(b)Temporary Presence ExceptionExtraterritorial ProvisionsOhio Workers' Compensation LawCincinnati BengalsProfessional Football PlayerCumulative Industrial InjuryReconsiderationEn Banc Decision
References
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The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award, finding that California's workers' compensation jurisdiction was exempted for the applicant's temporary work in California for the Baltimore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
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
Case No. ADJ9641921, ADJ9640385
Regular
Mar 29, 2016

PAZ CORRALES vs. KIMPTON HOTEL AND RESTAURANT GROUP dba KHRG GOLETA, LLC, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) due to a problematic Addendum "A". Applicant contends Addendum "A" incorrectly settled their right to future attorney's fees and contains conflicting, unenforceable provisions regarding future claims and confidentiality. The Board found potential jurisdictional issues and inconsistencies with the law, returning the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the C&R should be set aside.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAddendum ALabor Code section 5710attorney's feesrescinded OACRevidentiary hearingmistake inadvertence excusable neglectunenforceable provisionsconfidential provision
References
Case No. ADJ6426842
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

DAN FIKE vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS/CLEVELAND BROWNS

This case concerns a claim for cumulative industrial injury by a professional football player against his former employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision that California lacked jurisdiction over the claim. This was based on Labor Code section 3600.5(b), which exempts employees hired outside California and temporarily working within the state, provided the employer has extraterritorial coverage with another state that reciprocally exempts California. The employer, the Browns, successfully demonstrated these conditions were met under Ohio law.

Labor Code section 3600.5extraterritorial provisionsregularly employedtemporarily in Californiahired outside of Californiaself-insured employerOhio workers' compensation lawsCalifornia workers' compensation lawcumulative industrial injuryprofessional football player
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
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
Case No. ADJ7498500
Regular
Jan 29, 2014

JOSEPH DeLAMIELLEURE vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS/CLEVELAND BROWNS, BUFFALO BILLS

This case was remanded to the trial level for reconsideration of the exclusion of evidence concerning the applicability of Labor Code section 3500.5(b). Defendant sought to exempt itself from California workers' compensation coverage for the applicant's temporary employment in the state. The Appeals Board's en banc decision in *Carroll v. Cincinnati Bengals* established precedent regarding this exemption, requiring specific conditions to be met by both the employee and employer. The case is returned for the WCJ to evaluate the evidence and arguments in light of the *Carroll* ruling.

DeLamielleureBaltimore RavensBuffalo BillsLabor Code section 3500.5(b)Carroll v. Cincinnati Bengalsextraterritorial provisionsen banc decisionreconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ8613780
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

GLENN PARKER vs. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TIG/FAIRMONT PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, NEW YORK GIANTS, GULF/TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, BUFFALO BILLS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether California has sufficient jurisdiction to hear a workers' compensation claim for cumulative injury filed by a former professional football player. The applicant played 12 out of 176 total games in California, which the majority found to be a de minimis contact insufficient for California to assert jurisdiction due to due process concerns, citing the *Johnson* case. The Board affirmed the trial judge's decision to deny jurisdiction, while also correcting a clerical error regarding the insurer. A dissenting commissioner argued that California's interest in protecting workers injured within the state is substantial and that the applicant's contacts were not de minimis.

WCABcumulative industrial injuryprofessional athletede minimis California contactsdue processsubject matter jurisdictionFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)constitutional due processextraterritorial provisionsstatutory exemption
References
Case No. ADJ8552834
Regular
Aug 24, 2015

JOHN SKORUPAN vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, ACE USA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify its jurisdiction over applicant John Skorupan's cumulative industrial injury claim against the New York Giants. The WCAB affirmed the administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that while the WCAB has personal jurisdiction, California lacks a legitimate and substantial interest to exercise jurisdiction over the claim, citing the *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)* precedent. This decision hinges on the applicant's minimal California contacts (5 games out of 141 played) not establishing a sufficient connection for due process. Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that the applicant's more than de minimis exposure in California and the state's public policy of protecting injured workers should support jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardcumulative industrial injuryprofessional athleteoutside linebackerspecial teamsFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)de minimis California contactsconstitutional due processPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ
References
Showing 1-10 of 227 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