What the panel ordered
The WCAB affirmed the February 4, 2019 Findings and Order denying jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5, concluding no contract for hire was made in California either directly or through the applicant's agent.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant challenging the February 4, 2019 Findings and Order denying California jurisdiction over the claim; WCJ recommended denial of the petition; WCAB issued Decision After Reconsideration affirming the WCJ's Findings and Order.
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.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant did not meet the burden of proving a contract for hire was made in California, either directly or through his agent, based on the contract execution locations and the agent's lack of authority to bind the applicant without prior written consent.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the February 4, 2019 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional hockey player from 2012 through 2016, claimed to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to multiple body parts, including but not limited to orthopedic, head, neck, spine, hips, upper and lower extremities, neurological, internal, eyes and ears. The WCJ found that applicant had not met the burden of proving a contract for hire was made within California, and as a result, that the court was without jurisdiction over applicant's claim pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5. (F&O, Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3.)