What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred
Petition for Reconsideration granted and final decision deferred pending further review of merits
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.
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study whether defendants are exempt from California jurisdiction under Labor Code § 3600.5(b) and related exemptions, deferring final decision pending further review.
From the decision · page 10IV. Accordingly, we grant defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant signed employment contracts in California with different teams during the cumulative trauma period from June 1, 1990 through August 25, 2004.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact challenges defendants' claim of exemption from California jurisdiction and is central to the reconsideration of jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 8signed in Arizona, it is undisputed that applicant signed employment contracts in California with
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code §§ 5300, 5301, 3600.5(a), 5305
The WCAB may assert subject matter jurisdiction when there is a significant connection or nexus to California, including injuries occurring outside California if hired or regularly working in California (Labor Code §§ 5300, 5301, 3600.5(a), 5305).
Applied to determine jurisdiction over the applicant's claim.
From the decision · page 6In general, the WCAB may assert its subject matter jurisdiction in a given workers' compensation injury claim when the evidence establishes that an employment related injury, which is the subject matter, has a significant connection or nexus to the state of California. (See § 5300, 5301; King, supra, 270 F.2d at 360; Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1128.) Whether there is a significant connection or nexus to the State of California is best described as an issue of due process, though it has also been referred to as a question of subject-matter jurisdiction. (New York Knickerbockers v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Macklin) (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1238; Johnson, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at 1128.)
Labor Code §§ 3600.5(b), (c), (d)
Exemptions to California jurisdiction for professional athletes hired outside California temporarily working in California if employer has workers' compensation coverage in another state and reciprocal provisions apply (Labor Code §§ 3600.5(b), (c), (d)).
Considered in evaluating defendants' exemption claim.
From the decision · page 7Sections 3600.5(b), (c), and (d) provide exemptions to California's jurisdiction:
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.