ADJ8809936 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review

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 / venueRemanded

The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the jurisdictional and liability issues raised by NJMIC, deferring final decision pending further review of the entire record and applicable law.

From the decision · page 2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will 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. Once a final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 et seq.

Other disputed issue

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant's employment contract formation in California is critical to establishing WCAB jurisdiction over injuries outside California.

Favours neutral

Jurisdiction depends on whether the applicant was hired in California, as per Labor Code section 5305 and related case law.

From the decision · page 3Accordingly, the formation of a contract for hire, standing alone, is sufficient to confer California jurisdiction over an industrial injury that occurs outside the state. "[T]he creation of the [employer-employee] status under the laws of this state is a sufficient jurisdictional basis for the regulation of that relationship within this state and the creation of incidents thereto which will be recognized within this state, even though the relation was entered into for purposes connected

Applicant's evaluating psychologist Dr. Greenzang opined that applicant's emotional reaction to physical symptoms significantly contributed to psychiatric symptoms.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This opinion is key to determining the extent of psychiatric injury causation and impairment rating under Labor Code section 4660.1.

From the decision · page 5Moreover, and with respect to the issue of direct versus compensable consequence injury, applicant's evaluating psychologist Dr. Greenzang has opined that applicant's "emotional reaction to his having become physically symptomatic referable to multiple areas during the course of his professional basketball career and his emotional reaction to his having felt pressured to attempt to continue to play and perform despite his physical symptoms and limitations in function combined to play an active, significant and predominant role of greater than fifty percent as to all causes in compromising his adaptive capacities and precipitating dysphoric symptoms and symptoms of anxiety in the applicant." (Ex. 5, Report of Ted Greenzang, M.D., dated May 7, 2018, at pp. 22-23.)

ADJ8809936 · June 21, 2024

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page