ADJ13261228 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Further briefing allowed; final decision pending after briefing period.

Petition for reconsideration granted to study factual and legal issues; further briefing ordered.

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.

Reconsideration / removalDeferred

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues raised by the applicant's claim exemption under Labor Code section 3600.5, considering recent case law (Gandy) relevant to the contract of hire and California jurisdiction.

From the decision · page 1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the October 12, 2021 Findings and Order, wherein the wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's claim was exempt from the California workers' compensation system based upon the provisions of Labor Code2 section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d). Applicant asserts that the WCJ erred because he was employed by the Giants, a California-based employer, and therefore should be able to recover compensation for injuries sustained during that employment. We received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration ("Report"), recommending that the Petition be denied. Subsequent to the grant of reconsideration, the Court of Appeal issued Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] ("Gandy"), a decision interpreting section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Of specific relevance to this case, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant's claim was initially found exempt from California workers' compensation system under Labor Code section 3600.5(c) and (d).

Favours Applicant prevailed

This finding was the basis for the petition for reconsideration to challenge the exemption and assert California jurisdiction due to employment by a California-based team.

From the decision · page 1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the October 12, 2021 Findings and Order, wherein the wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's claim was exempt from the California workers' compensation system based upon the provisions of Labor Code2 section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d). Applicant asserts that the WCJ erred because he was employed by the Giants, a California-based employer, and therefore should be able to recover compensation for injuries sustained during that employment. We received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration ("Report"), recommending that the Petition be denied. Subsequent to the grant of reconsideration, the Court of Appeal issued Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] ("Gandy"), a decision interpreting section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Of specific relevance to this case, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:

The Court of Appeal decision in Gandy (2025) interprets section 3600.5 and the concept of 'hire' in California workers' compensation law, favoring a liberal construction to find California jurisdiction when the employer is California-based.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This case law was cited as directly relevant and required consideration in the reconsideration of the applicant's claim exemption.

From the decision · page 1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the October 12, 2021 Findings and Order, wherein the wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's claim was exempt from the California workers' compensation system based upon the provisions of Labor Code2 section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d). Applicant asserts that the WCJ erred because he was employed by the Giants, a California-based employer, and therefore should be able to recover compensation for injuries sustained during that employment. We received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration ("Report"), recommending that the Petition be denied. Subsequent to the grant of reconsideration, the Court of Appeal issued Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] ("Gandy"), a decision interpreting section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Of specific relevance to this case, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:

ADJ13261228 · May 28, 2026

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

The rules the panel named

About this page