ADJ10607572 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Defendant's petition for reconsideration denied; applicant's petition for reconsideration granted; decision of January 31, 2025 amended and affirmed in part; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.

Petitions for reconsideration filed by applicant and defendant; WCJ recommended denying defendant's petition and granting applicant's petition for further record development; WCAB granted applicant's petition, denied defendant's petition, and returned matter to trial level for further proceedings.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 16, 2024.

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.

Medical treatment / UR / IMRDefendant prevailed

The WCJ properly relied on the reports of treating physicians as the sole body of medical evidence; the WCAB declined to disturb this reliance.

From the decision · page 6We next address defendant's contention that the reporting of applicant's treating physicians is inadmissible. Defendant contends the reporting of primary treating physician (PTP) Dr. Fonseca does not reflect an actual treatment relationship with applicant, nor can it describe a treatment relationship when the treating physician opines applicant became permanent and stationary more than three years prior to the evaluation. (Defendant's Petition, at p. 3:23; 4:11.) Defendant further contends that none of applicant's evaluations by Drs. Greenzang, Nudleman, and Dimmick were accomplished by an appropriate referral from the PTP, and accordingly, were not an appropriate basis upon which to issue an Award. (Id. at p. 6:23.)

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant signed multiple contracts in California, establishing sufficient connection for WCAB jurisdiction.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact justified the WCAB's exercise of jurisdiction over the claim despite defendant's forum selection clause argument.

From the decision · page 7Here, applicant was hired in California on multiple occasions. Applicant's unrebutted testimony establishes that he signed his first multi-year contract with the Chicago Cubs in 1998 while physically located at his future father-in-law's home in Menlo Park, California. (Transcript of Proceedings, September 18, 2018, at p. 13:20; 14:4.) Applicant signed a subsequent contract with the Cubs while physically located in California. (Id. at p. 13:31.) Applicant's testimony also establishes that he signed his major league contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers while physically located at Dodger Stadium, in Los Angeles, California. (Id. at p. 16:11.) Applicant's hirings in California are sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim, which is the alleged cumulative injury. (Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Palma) (1934) 1 Cal.2d 250, affd. (1935) 294 U.S. 532 (Palma); Bowen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 15, 27 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 745] ["an employee who is a professional athlete residing in California... who signs a player's contract in California furnished to the athlete here by an out- of-state team, is entitled to benefits under the act for injuries received while playing out of state under the contract"]; Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 221

The medical record was undeveloped regarding the nature and extent of injury, including psychiatric injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded for further development to ensure substantial evidence supports the award.

From the decision · page 5The WCJ's Report observes that any decision, award or order of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of a review of the entire record. (Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310].) Following a review of the entire record, the WCJ recommends that we grant reconsideration and return the matter to the trial level for development of the medical and medical-legal record with respect to the nature and extent of the injury.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 4060(b)

Reports of treating physicians shall be admissible.

WCJ properly relied on treating physicians' reports as sole medical evidence.

From the decision · page 7Cal.2d 476 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221].) Moreover, section 4060(b) provides that "reports of treating physicians shall be admissible." (Lab. Code, § 4060(b).) Accordingly, we decline to disturb the WCJ's reliance on the reporting of applicant's treating physicians, the sole body of medical reporting admitted in evidence.

Labor Code sections 5701, 5906; McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Board en banc)

The WCAB has discretion to develop the record when medical evidence is not substantial or to provide due process.

WCAB granted reconsideration to develop medical record on nature and extent of injury.

From the decision · page 5The WCJ's Report observes that any decision, award or order of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of a review of the entire record. (Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310].) Following a review of the entire record, the WCJ recommends that we grant reconsideration and return the matter to the trial level for development of the medical and medical-legal record with respect to the nature and extent of the injury.

Labor Code sections 5000, 5305, 3600.5(a); McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23

Applicant's hiring in California confers jurisdiction over workers' compensation claim despite forum selection clause.

WCAB denied defendant's petition on jurisdiction issue based on applicant's California hiring.

From the decision · page 7Finally, we address defendant's contention that the "WCJ incorrectly refused to enforce the Reds valid choice of law and choice of forum selection clause in their contract pursuant to the holding in the en banc decision of McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23." (Defendant's Petition, at p. 9:4.) Defendant asserts that because the Reds "never employed the Applicant in California and did not enter into a contract of hire with Applicant in California," the forum selection clause in applicant's contract with the Reds must be enforced. (Id. at p. 9:11.)

ADJ10607572 · May 6, 2025

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