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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Handel

HSBC Bank USA objected to Joel M. Handel's exemptions of his interest in a profit-sharing plan and three life insurance policies in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. HSBC argued that Handel's actions, including unauthorized withdrawals and false representations as a trustee, violated the plan's terms, ERISA, and IRC Section 401(a), thereby rendering his interest non-exempt. The court acknowledged Handel's violations but, citing Patterson v. Shumate, ruled that an anti-alienation provision enforceable under ERISA excludes the plan interest from the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of operational compliance or tax-qualified status. Additionally, the court found Handel adequately identified the life insurance policies. Consequently, HSBC's motion was denied, preserving Handel's exemptions.

BankruptcyERISAPension PlanExemptionAnti-alienationDebtor's EstateIRC 401(a)Life InsuranceDebtor's ConductFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. 286/10
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A.

Plaintiffs Delores Jackson, Shawn Jackson, and Odamis Villa initiated a lawsuit against Defendant Bank of America, alleging that the bank unlawfully froze their accounts in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA), CPLR 5222-a. The plaintiffs contended that the bank failed to provide required exemption notices and claim forms, improperly aggregated funds from multiple accounts, and closed accounts without due process, thereby denying them access to statutorily exempt funds. Bank of America filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the EIPA does not confer a private right of action for debtors against banks and that its actions were supported by documentary evidence. The court reviewed the defendant's evidence, which was found to support the plaintiffs' allegations, and concluded that an implied private right of action exists under the EIPA, aligning with its legislative intent to protect vulnerable account holders. Consequently, the court denied Bank of America's motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with their claims and also ruling against the bank's preemption argument.

Exempt Income Protection ActCPLR 5222-aPrivate Right of ActionImplied Right of ActionBank Account RestraintJudgment Debtor RightsConsumer ProtectionMotion to DismissPreemptionBanking Law
References
27
Case No. ADJ1360622 (ANA 0407664)
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

LUCIUS SANFORD vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS\/CLEVELAND BROWNS, BUFFALO BILLS

This case concerns an applicant's workers' compensation claim against the Cleveland Browns for injuries sustained as a professional football player. The Appeals Board, reconsidering a prior award, determined that the Browns and the applicant were exempt from California workers' compensation jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(b). This exemption applies when an employee is hired outside of California, temporarily works within the state, and the employer provides coverage under another state's laws that reciprocally exempts such arrangements. Consequently, the prior award was rescinded, and the Browns were dismissed as a defendant, with the case returned for further proceedings.

WCABADJ1360622Lucius SanfordBaltimore RavensCleveland BrownsBuffalo BillsLabor Code Section 3600.5(b)Findings And AwardWCJpermanent disability
References
1
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. ADJ1322108 (ANA 0407206)
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

GLEN YOUNG vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS/CLEVELAND BROWNS, PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, ACE USA

This case concerns the defendant's claim of exemption from California workers' compensation law under Labor Code section 3600.5(b). The Appeals Board found that the applicant, a professional football player hired outside California, was only temporarily working in the state. Based on precedent established in *Carroll v. Cincinnati Bengals*, the Board determined that all conditions for exemption were met, as the employer provided coverage under Ohio law, and Ohio law reciprocally exempts California employers. Consequently, the initial award of permanent disability and future medical treatment was rescinded, and the defendant was dismissed from the case.

Labor Code section 3600.5(b)extraterritorial provisionsprofessional football playercumulative industrial injurypermanent disabilityfuture medical treatmentpetition for reconsiderationen banc decisionCarroll v. Cincinnati BengalsOhio workers' compensation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Amerogen v. Donnini

This dissenting opinion addresses the interpretation of the 'owners of one and two-family dwellings' exemption from Labor Law liability under sections 240 and 241. Justice Levine argues that the exemption, intended to protect typical homeowners, should be strictly construed and not applied to owners who acquire residential property purely for investment and income-producing purposes. The dissent references legislative history from the Law Revision Commission, highlighting the rationale that the nondelegable duty to workers is based on the owner's dominant economic position, which breaks down for typical homeowners but not for real estate developers or investors. Therefore, the dissent concludes that such investors fall outside the protected class, maintaining that the Supreme Court correctly denied summary judgment to the defendants. The final order, however, reversed this decision, granted summary judgment to defendants, and dismissed the complaint.

Labor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryExemption ClauseOne-Two Family DwellingsOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentsSummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
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
Showing 1-10 of 532 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