ADJ10874193 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The October 14, 2019 Joint Findings, Award and Order is affirmed; issue of claims administration left open for further proceedings if necessary.

Petition for Reconsideration granted to review legal and factual issues; decision after reconsideration issued affirming prior findings and award.

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Jurisdiction / venueApplicant prevailed

The panel concluded the choice of law/forum selection clause was unenforceable because it contravened California public policy and the Packers did not prove it overrides California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

QME/AME processApplicant prevailed

The panel held that because the injury occurred prior to January 1, 2005, the medical-legal reporting process under former section 4062 applies, not the process under section 4062.2.

From the decision · page 12The Green Bay Packers further contend that the section 5412 date of injury determined by the WCJ occurs after January 1, 2005, requiring the parties to use the medical-legal process set forth under section 4062.2. Because the parties obtained medical reporting pursuant to section 4062 as it existed prior to 2005, the Green Bay Packers contend any such reporting should be stricken from the record. (Green Bay Packers Petition, at 6:20.) However, as is noted in the various

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant was hired and employed by the Oakland Raiders, a California-based team, for nearly four years during the cumulative injury period.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established a sufficient nexus for California workers' compensation jurisdiction and supported the application of California law.

From the decision · page 9has such a connection or nexus, this particular requirement is met."].) Moreover, as the Macklin court observed, the applicant's time in the employ of a California-based team is sufficient, in and of itself, to make the application of California workers' compensation law reasonable. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that New England Patriots were denied due process by the WCJ's exercise of California jurisdiction herein.

Defendants Patriots and Packers waived objection to personal jurisdiction by participating in discovery and failing to timely raise the issue.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Waiver of personal jurisdiction allowed the WCAB to exercise jurisdiction over these defendants.

The choice of law/forum selection clause in the employment agreement was not enforced because it contravened California public policy and the Packers did not prove it overrides California's interest.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This allowed the claim to proceed under California law despite the contractual clause.

The injury occurred prior to January 1, 2005, so the medical-legal reporting process under former section 4062 applies, not the process under section 4062.2.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This determined the admissibility of medical-legal reports and the applicable procedural rules.

From the decision · page 12The Green Bay Packers further contend that the section 5412 date of injury determined by the WCJ occurs after January 1, 2005, requiring the parties to use the medical-legal process set forth under section 4062.2. Because the parties obtained medical reporting pursuant to section 4062 as it existed prior to 2005, the Green Bay Packers contend any such reporting should be stricken from the record. (Green Bay Packers Petition, at 6:20.) However, as is noted in the various

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116

California workers' compensation law applies to cumulative injury claims with sufficient connection to California, including hiring and employment in California.

The panel applied Johnson to find sufficient nexus for California jurisdiction based on applicant's hiring and employment with a California team.

From the decision · page 7However, even when California has statutorily conferred subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury, it may nevertheless be unreasonable as a matter of due process to adjudicate a case in the California workers' compensation system, if there is an insufficient connection between the State of California the applicant's injuries. (Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1128 [165 Cal. Rptr. 3d 288] (Johnson).)

A contract of hire in California supports application of California workers' compensation law, overriding choice of law/forum selection clauses that contravene California public policy.

The panel applied Jackson to hold the choice of law/forum selection clause unenforceable as against California public policy.

Simi v. Sav-Max Foods, Inc. (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 217

For injuries prior to January 1, 2005, medical-legal reports are obtained under former section 4062, not section 4062.2.

The panel applied Simi and related cases to hold that the medical-legal reporting process under former section 4062 applies to this claim.

From the decision · page 13Moreover, we have previously held in Simi v. Sav-Max Foods, Inc. (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 217 [2005 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 3] (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Simi), that because the legislature did not provide a medical-legal procedure for cases occurring prior to the effective date of SB899, "section 4062, as it existed before its amendment by SB 899, continues to provide the procedure by which AME and QME medical-legal reports are obtained in cases involving represented employees." (Id. at p. 221.)

ADJ10874193 · January 11, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

About this page