What the panel ordered
March 28, 2019 Findings and Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further development of record
Petition for Reconsideration granted for further study; decision after reconsideration issued rescinding prior Findings and Order and returning matter to trial level for further record development
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 record was found inadequate to determine the nature of the employment relationship and jurisdiction; further development of the record was necessary to clarify the relationship between applicant, Balboa City Schools, and the paying entity WOFE, and to address California jurisdiction over the injury.
From the decision · page 7However, under sections 3600.5 and 5705, jurisdiction flows from the formation of a contract of hire. "Where the duty to pay compensation is contractual, as under the optional acts, the rights of the injured party, wherever the injury is received, may, according to recognized principles, be controlled by the law of the place of contract. However, the California act is compulsory and it is now settled that the right to, and the liability for, compensation established by it are not founded upon contract but are statutory rights and duties arising from the employer- employee relationship and are imposed by the law as incidents to that status. (Alaska Packers Assoc. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Palma) (1934) 1 Cal.2d 250, 256 [1934 Cal. LEXIS 358].) After a careful review of the evidence, we are not persuaded that the question of applicant's employment and, by extension, jurisdiction over the injuries alleged to have arisen out of and in the course of that employment, is adequately addressed in the record of proceedings.