News and Insights

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur sit amet sem id nisi porta rutrum.

Antonio Pierce, vs. Washington Redskins; Ace American Insurance And Travelers; New York Football Giants, Inc.; Great Divide Insurance Company,

Washington Redskins; Ace American Insurance And Travelers; New York Football Giants, Inc.; Great Divide Insurance Company, Antonio Pierce, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAANTONIO PIERCE,Applicant,vs.WASHINGTON REDSKINS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE AND TRAVELERS; NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS, INC.; GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY,Defendants.Case No. ADJ8937991(Anaheim District Office)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            The separate petitions of defendant New York Football Giants, Inc. (New York) and its insurer great Divide Insurance Company, and of defendant Washington Redskins (Washington) and one of its insurers Travelers, for reconsideration of the October 5, 2016 Findings Of Fact of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) were previously granted in order to further study the record and issues in the case. The WCJ found that “California has jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim” of cumulative industrial injury to multiple body parts sustained while employed by Washington and New York as a professional football player during the period from April 27, 2001 to February 10, 2010.            Defendants contend that the W~AB does not have subject matter jurisdiction in this case because applicant did not prove he was hired in California. Defendants further contend that they should be dismissed from the case pursuant to the holding of the Court of Appeal in Federal Insurance Co. v,. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257] (Johnson) because of their limited contacts with this state with regard to applicant and his claimed injury. New York further contends that the WCAB should enforce a clause in its employment contract with , applicant that provides for the application of the law of a different state to claims for workers’ compensation, citing McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23 [2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 2] (Appeals Board en bane) (McKinley).     

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Join our community and never miss an update. Stay connected with cutting-edge insights and valuable resources.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *