The WCJ found the applicant regularly worked in California based on credible testimony and corroborating evidence, and defendant failed to rebut this evidence due to lost HR records and absence of supervisor testimony.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant failed to produce HR records due to system changes and did not produce supervisors to testify; applicant's job logs were stolen.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure to rebut applicant's evidence supported the WCJ's credibility finding and the conclusion of regular work in California.
Private workspace
Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.
Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.
LEXIS 29, *11-12 ["[D]efendant is more likely to have documentary
evidence showing applicant's period of employment, e.g., timesheets, wage records, paystubs,
etc."].) Here, defendant failed to produce evidence to rebut applicant's evidence as to employment
because it lost the HR records due to a change in systems, and defendant failed to produce the
applicant's supervisors to testify; additionally, the applicant's own job logs were stolen.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we conclude that the WCJ correctly determined that
applicant regularly worked in California, that California has jurisdiction, and that applicant is thus
entitled to claim California workers' compensation benefits, and we will not disturb his decision.
Applicant regularly worked in California for two to four weeks at a time and received per diem reimbursements for housing and food.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This showed a substantial connection to California supporting jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(a).
From the decision · page 6In the instant case, applicant provided evidence that he generally worked in California for
two to four weeks each time and received per diems for hotels and meals. Defendant's main
Defendant's main facilities were in California and applicant prepared equipment there for other job locations, providing economic benefit to the employer.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the finding that applicant was regularly working in California and that California had jurisdiction.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3600.5(a)
Labor Code section 3600.5(a)
California has jurisdiction if the employee was hired or regularly working in California at the time of injury outside the state.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed
WCJ found applicant's testimony credible and corroborated by defendant's evidence; defendant failed to produce HR records and supervisors to rebut applicant's evidence.
Find decisions like this onePanel decision
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
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.