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

Robinson v. Town of Kent

Plaintiff Ernest L. Robinson, III challenged the Town of Kent's anti-littering ordinance (Chapter 45, Section 45-12) alleging it violated his First Amendment rights after he was stopped from distributing flyers on car windshields. He also claimed police officers Darren Cea and Thomas Carroll unlawfully restricted his general distribution of flyers and detained him. The court granted Plaintiff's cross-motion, finding Section 45-12 unconstitutional as applied to him due to the Town's failure to provide objective evidence justifying the restriction. The court denied the defendants' motion for qualified immunity for the officers, citing disputed material facts regarding their conduct. However, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Town's liability for the officers' conduct, as the plaintiff failed to establish a municipal policy or custom leading to the alleged violation.

First Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechAnti-Littering OrdinanceSummary JudgmentQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityPolice MisconductLeafletingPublic ForumConstitutional Law
References
27
Case No. ADJ8196440
Regular
May 29, 2015

ADAM BURT vs. CAROLINA HURRICANES, ATLANTA THRESHERS, PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves the insurer of a former employer of a professional hockey player seeking reconsideration of a prior WCAB decision. The WCAB had reversed a judge's finding that the applicant's California contacts were de minimis and that California jurisdiction should not be exercised. The insurer argued that the injury did not legally occur in California and that imposing liability would deny due process. The WCAB denied the petition for reconsideration, upholding its prior decision. One commissioner dissented, preferring to reinstate the original judge's findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Industrial InjuryProfessional Hockey PlayerDe Minimis ContactsJurisdictionDue ProcessDissenting OpinionOpinion and Order DenyingFindings and Order
References
1
Case No. ADJ8710981
Regular
Mar 25, 2015

PETER FORSBERG vs. NASHVILLE PREDATORS, COLORADO AVALANCHE, PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reinstated and affirmed its jurisdiction over Peter Forsberg's cumulative injury claim. The WCAB found that California has a legitimate and substantial interest in adjudicating claims for injuries sustained within the state, and Forsberg's work in California was more than "de minimis" to his cumulative trauma injury. This decision reversed a prior ruling that had denied jurisdiction, finding that the defendant did not prove statutory exemption and that due process concerns were not violated. The case was returned for further proceedings, with a dissenting opinion arguing that Forsberg's limited California contacts were insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

Cumulative injuryProfessional hockey playerWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardJurisdictionFederal Insurance CompanyColorado AvalancheNashville PredatorsPhiladelphia FlyersDe minimis connectionLegitimate interest
References
23
Case No. ADJ9113575
Regular
Jul 26, 2018

DOUGLAS FAVELL vs. COLORADO ROCKIES/NEW JERSEY DEVILS, TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS, PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, OKLAHOMA CITY BLAZERS, SAN FRANCISCO SEALS, PINNACOL ASSURANCE

This case involved a professional hockey player's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained across multiple teams from 1965-1979. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Toronto Maple Leafs' petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that the Colorado Rockies, and their insurer Pinnacol Assurance, were exempt from California workers' compensation laws under Labor Code section 3600.5(b) due to reciprocal exemptions with Colorado law at the time of employment. Consequently, Toronto was held liable as the next employer over which California had jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryProfessional Hockey PlayerPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600.5(b)Labor Code Section 5500.5(a)ExemptedReciprocal StatuteColorado Revised Statute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mack v. Kings County Hospital Center

The claimant, a hospital care investigator, injured his left ankle while playing basketball at a voluntary "Finance Family Fun Day" picnic organized by his employer's department managers. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury work-related, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that the employer did not provide "overt encouragement" for employee participation in the activity, as required for compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 (1) when attendance is neither required nor compensated. Factors like paying for food and distributing flyers were deemed insufficient to establish overt encouragement, especially since employees paid an admission fee and the event was off-premises.

Accidental InjuryEmployment InjuryCompany EventRecreational ActivityOvert EncouragementCompensabilityWorkers’ Compensation LawAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimEmployer Sponsorship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheridan v. Carter

The plaintiffs, Fontaine Sheridan and Donald Sheridan, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The original order had granted the defendant Domestic Workers United's (DWU) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action in a defamation case, and also granted defendant Cindy Carter's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her. The appellate court reversed this order, denying both DWU's motion to dismiss and Carter's motion for summary judgment. The case stemmed from Carter's allegations of abuse and exploitation by the Sheridans, which were published in newspapers and circulated by DWU in flyers, leading the Sheridans to sue for defamation. The appellate court found sufficient allegations for a libel claim against DWU and that Carter failed to prove the truth of her defamatory statements.

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate ReviewPublic ConcernDomestic WorkersAbuse AllegationsImmigration Status
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duane Reads Inc. v. Local 338 Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union

Duane Reade Inc. sued Local 338 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and its officers for defamation following a heated labor dispute. The union had published allegedly libelous statements on a website, press releases, and flyers concerning Duane Reade's business practices and treatment of workers. Duane Reade contended that the union as a whole should be held accountable or, alternatively, that the officers acted outside their official capacities. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, citing the long-standing New York rule from Martin v Curran, which requires unanimous member ratification for suits against unincorporated unions. Furthermore, the court determined that the cause of action was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because the union's communications were related to a protected labor dispute and did not meet the malice standard required to overcome preemption, also noting the republication privilege.

DefamationLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityNational Labor Relations ActNLRA PreemptionMartin v CurranFreedom of SpeechLibelImplied AgencyNew York Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Flavin

The plaintiff, a union member who worked during a strike, sued the defendant, president of Local 1170, Communications Workers of America, for libel. The suit stemmed from a flyer circulated by the defendant that characterized the plaintiff as a "scab" and included a definition attributed to Jack London. Special Term granted partial summary judgment to the defendant, ruling the term "scab" was not libelous as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed, citing federal pre-emption of state libel actions in labor disputes, as established in Linn v Plant Guard Workers and Letter Carriers v Austin. The court held that the use of "scab" and its definition, while insulting, is protected under federal labor law as figurative speech common in such disputes. The court also noted a qualified privilege for communications among union members. However, the issue of other potentially defamatory statements being made with actual malice was remanded for a triable issue of fact.

LibelDefamationLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentFreedom of SpeechNLRA Section 7Scab EpithetQualified Privilege
References
4
Showing 1-8 of 8 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