What the panel ordered
The WCAB denied defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ's Findings of Fact.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by the WCJ on February 5, 2020, contending Arizona had exclusive jurisdiction over the injury claim.
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.
California has a legitimate and substantial interest in protecting injured workers and the applicant was regularly in California doing business for the employer, making California jurisdiction appropriate.
From the decision · page 3We agree with the WCJ that the applicant in this matter was not temporarily within this state doing work for his employer as a minimum of 23.6% or 35% of his deliveries were made in California. Additionally, it is undisputed that the incident causing applicant's injury occurred at a California truck stop and applicant received medical attention in California. (Cf. Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1126 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257] [location of injury and medical treatment are factors to consider in deciding if California workers' compensation applies].) Therefore, California has a strong interest in covering applicant under California's workers' compensation system.