What the panel ordered
Rescinded prior Findings and Order; found WCAB has subject matter jurisdiction over cumulative injury claim; deferred other issues
Petition for Reconsideration granted to review jurisdictional issues; prior Findings and Order rescinded and replaced with new findings on jurisdiction; other issues deferred
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 prevailedleft elbow · left ankle · left shoulder
Applicant played less than seven seasons for non-California-based teams because his time in the Puerto Rican winter league did not qualify as professional seasons under the statute, thus meeting the exception to the jurisdictional bar and establishing California jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 10Section 3600.5(g)(1) defines the term "professional athlete" as an athlete "who is employed at either a minor or major league level in the sport of baseball, basketball, football, ice hockey, or soccer." (Lab. Code, § 3600.5(g)(1).) Applicant's undisputed trial testimony established that he played for the Mayaguez team in a winter league in Puerto Rico that was neither minor nor major league baseball. Applicant testified that the Mayaguez league was a "winter league," where players attend to get in shape for spring training in the major leagues. (Id. at p. 6:18.) The winter league season is timed to occur in the off season for major league play and is split between the winter of one year and the spring of the next. Applicant would play less than 10 games during the winter league season. (Id. at p. 6:23.) Applicant testified that "Mayaguez is not a professional organization...it is winter ball." (Id. at p.