ADJ9990732 · March 9, 2021

Applicant was hired in California by the 49ers, which establishes sufficient connection for California jurisdiction over the claim; defendant failed to prove that exemptions under subdivisions (c) and (d) applied to applicant's last two employers; lack of personal jurisdiction does not exempt substantive workers' compensation law application.

From the decision · page 9Accordingly, we will affirm the WCJ's finding of jurisdiction.

Applicant was hired in California by the San Francisco 49ers and accepted the contract in California

Favours Applicant prevailed

This hire establishes sufficient connection for California to exercise jurisdiction over the claim under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305

From the decision · page 2(Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 7/19/2017, at p. 2.) The matter proceeded to trial on July 19, 2017, on the sole issue of jurisdiction. Applicant testified that the 49ers provided him a plane ticket, flew him to California from New Jersey, and offered him a three-year contract after a workout session. (Id. at p. 3.) He accepted the contract in California. (Ibid.) No contract terms were discussed while he was in New Jersey. (Ibid.) Applicant was never a resident in California, never used a California-based agent, and never signed any other contracts in California. (Ibid.) Both parties submitted trial briefs. Defendant's trial brief argues that section 3600.5, subdivision (d) precludes the exercise of WCAB jurisdiction over a claim if the WCAB cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over at least one employer during the applicant's last year as a professional athlete. In this case, defendant asserts that the WCAB "lacks personal jurisdiction... pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5(c)" over applicant's last two employers, the Tampa Bay Storm ("the Storm") and the Carolina Cobras ("the Cobras") and therefore his claim is barred from being adjudicated in this forum. (Defendant's Post-Trial Brief, at p. 3.)

Defendant failed to prove that applicant worked in California for his last two employers or that those employers had workers' compensation coverage applicable in California

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without proof of work or coverage in California for the last two employers, exemptions under Labor Code section 3600.5(c) and (d) do not apply

From the decision · page 8Here, as the party seeking to prove the application of the subdivision, the burden of proof lies with defendant. (§ 5705). However, as far as can be told from the record, applicant never performed any work activities in California for either the Storm or the Cobras. In fact, the Petition for Reconsideration affirmatively asserts that applicant never played in California for either team. (Petition for Reconsideration, at p. 7.) Because the record does not show that applicant was ever temporarily within this state while performing work for either team, defendant fails to prove that subdivision (c) applies to either the Storm or the Cobras.

California Labor Code

Labor Code section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d)

Defines exemptions for professional athletes' cumulative trauma claims and conditions for California jurisdiction

California Labor Code

Labor Code section 3600.5 subdivision (a)

Establishes jurisdiction for employees hired or regularly working in California for injuries outside the state

From the decision · page 4In addition to injuries occurring in California, the WCAB can also assert subject matter jurisdiction over injuries occurring outside this state in certain circumstances. Section 3600.5, subdivision (a) states: "If an employee who has been hired or is regularly working in the state receives personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment outside of this state, he or she, or his or her dependents, in the case of his or her death, shall be entitled to compensation according to the law of this state." (§ 3600.5(a).) Similarly, section 5305 states: "The Division of Workers' Compensation, including the administrative director, and the appeals board have jurisdiction over all controversies arising out of injuries suffered outside the territorial limits of this state in those cases where the injured employee is a resident of this state at the time of the injury and the contract of hire was made in this state." (§ 5305.)2

California Labor Code

Labor Code section 5305

Jurisdiction over injuries outside California when contract of hire was made in California

From the decision · page 4In addition to injuries occurring in California, the WCAB can also assert subject matter jurisdiction over injuries occurring outside this state in certain circumstances. Section 3600.5, subdivision (a) states: "If an employee who has been hired or is regularly working in the state receives personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment outside of this state, he or she, or his or her dependents, in the case of his or her death, shall be entitled to compensation according to the law of this state." (§ 3600.5(a).) Similarly, section 5305 states: "The Division of Workers' Compensation, including the administrative director, and the appeals board have jurisdiction over all controversies arising out of injuries suffered outside the territorial limits of this state in those cases where the injured employee is a resident of this state at the time of the injury and the contract of hire was made in this state." (§ 5305.)2

Applicant was hired in California by the 49ers and accepted a contract in California; defendant failed to prove applicant worked in California for last two employers or that those employers had workers' compensation coverage applicable in California

From the decision · page 2(Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 7/19/2017, at p. 2.) The matter proceeded to trial on July 19, 2017, on the sole issue of jurisdiction. Applicant testified that the 49ers provided him a plane ticket, flew him to California from New Jersey, and offered him a three-year contract after a workout session. (Id. at p. 3.) He accepted the contract in California. (Ibid.) No contract terms were discussed while he was in New Jersey. (Ibid.) Applicant was never a resident in California, never used a California-based agent, and never signed any other contracts in California. (Ibid.) Both parties submitted trial briefs. Defendant's trial brief argues that section 3600.5, subdivision (d) precludes the exercise of WCAB jurisdiction over a claim if the WCAB cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over at least one employer during the applicant's last year as a professional athlete. In this case, defendant asserts that the WCAB "lacks personal jurisdiction... pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5(c)" over applicant's last two employers, the Tampa Bay Storm ("the Storm") and the Carolina Cobras ("the Cobras") and therefore his claim is barred from being adjudicated in this forum. (Defendant's Post-Trial Brief, at p. 3.)