Home/Case Law/, CHARLIE GARNER, vs. , TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; OAKLAND RAIDERS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Regular DecisionReconsideration

, CHARLIE GARNER, vs. , TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; OAKLAND RAIDERS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Filed: Jun 13, 2014
Anaheim
ADJ6627095

CompFox AI Summary

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board rescinded an arbitrator's decision and ruled that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are not entitled to contribution from the Oakland Raiders.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.

, CHARLIE GARNER, vs. , TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; OAKLAND RAIDERS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, is a workers' compensation case decided in Anaheim. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.

It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Anaheim.

Full Decision Text1 Pages

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board rescinded an arbitrator's decision and ruled that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are not entitled to contribution from the Oakland Raiders.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.

Read the full decision

Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.

, CHARLIE GARNER, vs. , TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; OAKLAND RAIDERS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, workers compensation case in Anaheim. Legal case summary, ruling, and analysis for attorneys and legal research.

, CHARLIE GARNER, vs. , TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; OAKLAND RAIDERS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, case law summary from Anaheim. Workers compensation legal decision, case analysis, and court ruling details.

, CHARLIE GARNER, vs. , TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; OAKLAND RAIDERS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case Analysis

, CHARLIE GARNER, vs. , TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; OAKLAND RAIDERS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, is a legal case related to workers' compensation in Anaheim. This case explains important rulings, legal interpretations, and claim decisions.

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.