ADJ9082985 · May 16, 2024

The WCJ found no California contract of hire and insufficient contacts between the injury and California to justify jurisdiction, supported by substantial evidence including applicant's deposition and medical reports.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Order (F&O) issued on May 30, 2019, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from July 1, 1965 to July 1, 1975 claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his head, vision, jaw, neck, back, shoulders, elbows, wrist, hands, fingers, hips, knees, ankles, feet, toes, neuro/psyche, internal, cardiovascular, heart, hypertension, sleep, and injuries resulting in his death. The WCJ found that applicant's employment contracts were entered into outside the State of California, and that California does not have a legitimate and substantial interest in applicant's claim sufficient to compel defendant to adjudicate the claim under the laws of California.

Applicant's deposition testimony that he signed his contracts outside California was given greater weight than his spouse's hearsay testimony claiming contracts were signed in California.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This credibility finding led to the conclusion that no California contract of hire existed, negating jurisdiction on that basis.

From the decision · page 7Applicant's deposition was taken on November 16, 2016, where he testified that he signed two contracts during the course of his career; both times these were signed in New York for the Knicks. (Defendant Chesapeake/Washington Exhibit V, page 33 line 6 through 19). He testified that his agent at the time was Norm Blass who operated from New York City and that was where he physically signed his first contract with the Knicks. (Defendant Chesapeake/Washington Exhibit V, page 12, line 1). He later testified that when he went on to play for the Baltimore Bullets he signed a third contract in Maryland. (Defendant Chesapeake/Washington Exhibit V, page 33 line 16 though page 34 line 1).

Medical evidence, particularly from Dr. Jonathan Green, did not support the occurrence of heart attacks in California or a cumulative injury greater in California than elsewhere.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This medical finding supported the conclusion that California did not have a legitimate and substantial interest to exercise jurisdiction based on injury contacts.

From the decision · page 10The qualitative aspect of the Johnson test measures the injurious nature of applicants' cumulative trauma injury and whether or not the exposure sustained in California was greater than that in other jurisdictions. This WCJ considered the submitted medical reports and found that the more credible medical reporting indicated that applicant did not sustain a cumulative injury as the result of his professional basketball career. Of those medical reports that do find industrial injury, none indicate that the California exposure was of a greater nature than that experienced elsewhere.

Found that applicant did not sustain any cumulative injury on an internal basis and no medical evidence supported the alleged heart attacks.

The WCJ relied on Dr. Green's medical reports as substantial evidence to conclude no cumulative injury or heart attacks occurred as alleged, impacting jurisdiction determination.

From the decision · page 10In reviewing the evidence presented at trial, this WCJ found that the medical reporting proffered by defendant was the only substantial medical evidence that the court could rely on in basing his decision. This WCJ based his findings on the reporting of internist Dr. Jonathan Green who found that applicant did not sustain any cumulative injury on an internal basis, and that there was no medical evidence to support applicant had suffered any heart attacks as alleged.

California Labor Code

Labor Code sections 3600.5(a), 5305, 5903 provide jurisdictional basis for contract of hire and injury claims.

The WCJ applied these statutes to assess subject matter jurisdiction based on contract formation and injury location.

From the decision · page 5Applicant first contends that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is vested with subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury because applicant entered into a contract of hire while within California's territorial boundaries.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 116

Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 116 establishes a two-part test for jurisdiction based on the qualitative and quantitative nature of injury exposure in California.

The WCJ and panel applied the Johnson test to determine that California's interest in adjudicating the claim was not legitimate or substantial due to minimal contacts.

From the decision · page 4Absent a California contract of hire, the WCJ then discussed the merits of applicant's claim of subject matter jurisdiction based on the contacts between applicant's claimed injury and the forum state of California. The WCJ cited to Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 116 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257], wherein "the Court addressed the threshold question of whether California's interest in adjudicating applicant's claim for workers' compensation `is legitimate and substantial in itself,'" and that as a result, the court was required to "consider the length of applicant's exposure in California in relation to applicant's overall employment and the extent to which the micro trauma sustained in California contributed to applicant's cumulative injury." (Opinion on Decision, at p. 8, quoting Johnson, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 1124).

Applicant's deposition testimony was found competent and given greater weight than hearsay testimony from applicant's spouse regarding contract formation in California.

From the decision · page 7Applicant's testimony is directly contradictory to that of his widow. In that the testimony of applicant and his widow were the only evidence on the issue of contract formation, the Court was forced to decide between the two accounts. This WCJ gave lesser weight to applicant's widow's statements than that of the applicant as her testimony was based on hearsay that occurred almost twenty- five years ago.

Medical reports, particularly from Dr. Jonathan Green, did not substantiate the occurrence of heart attacks in California or a cumulative injury greater in California than elsewhere.

From the decision · page 10The qualitative aspect of the Johnson test measures the injurious nature of applicants' cumulative trauma injury and whether or not the exposure sustained in California was greater than that in other jurisdictions. This WCJ considered the submitted medical reports and found that the more credible medical reporting indicated that applicant did not sustain a cumulative injury as the result of his professional basketball career. Of those medical reports that do find industrial injury, none indicate that the California exposure was of a greater nature than that experienced elsewhere.