What the panel ordered
Prior WCJ finding that California was not appropriate jurisdiction rescinded; WCAB finds California has jurisdiction; case returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for reconsideration granted; decision after reconsideration issued rescinding prior WCJ finding and substituting new finding of jurisdiction
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.
California has a strong interest in asserting jurisdiction because applicant is a long-time California resident, was injured in California, and the forum selection clause in the CBA is unenforceable under these circumstances.
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION Labor Code section 5000 states in relevant part: "No contract, rule, or regulation shall exempt the employer from liability for the compensation fixed by this division[.]" We are persuaded that the general statement of policy embodied in the statutory language quoted above justifies the conclusion that California has subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim of injury herein. We reach this conclusion because applicant is a long-time resident of this state, and her claimed injury happened here. We also note that for almost ten years earlier in her career as a flight attendant for Southwest, Oakland was her home-base airport. Later in her career, because Southwest had no "domicile" airport in Southern California, applicant chose Las Vegas as her home airport. Applicant made this choice only because it was the easiest way for her to get back and forth to her home in Long Beach. When applicant was attacked and severely beaten, she was in the midst of a three-day work trip and had gone home to Long Beach because