ADJ10874193 · January 11, 2024

The panel concluded the choice of law/forum selection clause was unenforceable because it contravened California public policy and the Packers did not prove it overrides California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

The panel held that because the injury occurred prior to January 1, 2005, the medical-legal reporting process under former section 4062 applies, not the process under section 4062.2.

From the decision · page 12The Green Bay Packers further contend that the section 5412 date of injury determined by the WCJ occurs after January 1, 2005, requiring the parties to use the medical-legal process set forth under section 4062.2. Because the parties obtained medical reporting pursuant to section 4062 as it existed prior to 2005, the Green Bay Packers contend any such reporting should be stricken from the record. (Green Bay Packers Petition, at 6:20.) However, as is noted in the various

The WCJ and panel found that California has subject matter jurisdiction based on applicant's hiring and employment with a California-based team, and that personal jurisdiction was waived by defendants' conduct.

From the decision · page 25500.5 was the last year of injurious exposure in 2002 resulting in liability for the New England Patriots, the Green Bay Packers, and the Carolina Panthers, insured by Legions Insurance, now in liquidation, administered by the California Insurance Guarantee Association (Carolina Panthers/CIGA). The WCJ further determined that CIGA had no liability because the New England Patriots and the Green Bay Packers both constituted "other insurance" as set forth in Insurance Code section 1063.1. The WCJ determined that the court had personal jurisdiction over the New England Patriots and the Green Bay Packers, and subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed cumulative injury. Relying on the reports adduced by applicant the WCJ found that applicant sustained 73 percent disability and awarded corresponding indemnity and future medical care.

Applicant was hired and employed by the Oakland Raiders, a California-based team, for nearly four years during the cumulative injury period.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established a sufficient nexus for California workers' compensation jurisdiction and supported the application of California law.

From the decision · page 9has such a connection or nexus, this particular requirement is met."].) Moreover, as the Macklin court observed, the applicant's time in the employ of a California-based team is sufficient, in and of itself, to make the application of California workers' compensation law reasonable. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that New England Patriots were denied due process by the WCJ's exercise of California jurisdiction herein.

Defendants Patriots and Packers waived objection to personal jurisdiction by participating in discovery and failing to timely raise the issue.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Waiver of personal jurisdiction allowed the WCAB to exercise jurisdiction over these defendants.

The choice of law/forum selection clause in the employment agreement was not enforced because it contravened California public policy and the Packers did not prove it overrides California's interest.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This allowed the claim to proceed under California law despite the contractual clause.

The injury occurred prior to January 1, 2005, so the medical-legal reporting process under former section 4062 applies, not the process under section 4062.2.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This determined the admissibility of medical-legal reports and the applicable procedural rules.

From the decision · page 12The Green Bay Packers further contend that the section 5412 date of injury determined by the WCJ occurs after January 1, 2005, requiring the parties to use the medical-legal process set forth under section 4062.2. Because the parties obtained medical reporting pursuant to section 4062 as it existed prior to 2005, the Green Bay Packers contend any such reporting should be stricken from the record. (Green Bay Packers Petition, at 6:20.) However, as is noted in the various

From the decision · page 3Applicant obtained reporting in orthopedic medicine from David S. Kim, M.D., and in neurology from Kenneth L. Nudleman, M.D. The defendants have also obtained Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) reporting in orthopedic medicine from Brian D. Rothi, M.D., and in neurology from Charles Glatstein, M.D.

From the decision · page 3Applicant obtained reporting in orthopedic medicine from David S. Kim, M.D., and in neurology from Kenneth L. Nudleman, M.D. The defendants have also obtained Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) reporting in orthopedic medicine from Brian D. Rothi, M.D., and in neurology from Charles Glatstein, M.D.

From the decision · page 3Applicant obtained reporting in orthopedic medicine from David S. Kim, M.D., and in neurology from Kenneth L. Nudleman, M.D. The defendants have also obtained Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) reporting in orthopedic medicine from Brian D. Rothi, M.D., and in neurology from Charles Glatstein, M.D.

From the decision · page 3Applicant obtained reporting in orthopedic medicine from David S. Kim, M.D., and in neurology from Kenneth L. Nudleman, M.D. The defendants have also obtained Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) reporting in orthopedic medicine from Brian D. Rothi, M.D., and in neurology from Charles Glatstein, M.D.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116

California workers' compensation law applies to cumulative injury claims with sufficient connection to California, including hiring and employment in California.

The panel applied Johnson to find sufficient nexus for California jurisdiction based on applicant's hiring and employment with a California team.

From the decision · page 7However, even when California has statutorily conferred subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury, it may nevertheless be unreasonable as a matter of due process to adjudicate a case in the California workers' compensation system, if there is an insufficient connection between the State of California the applicant's injuries. (Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1128 [165 Cal. Rptr. 3d 288] (Johnson).)

A contract of hire in California supports application of California workers' compensation law, overriding choice of law/forum selection clauses that contravene California public policy.

The panel applied Jackson to hold the choice of law/forum selection clause unenforceable as against California public policy.

Simi v. Sav-Max Foods, Inc. (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 217

For injuries prior to January 1, 2005, medical-legal reports are obtained under former section 4062, not section 4062.2.

The panel applied Simi and related cases to hold that the medical-legal reporting process under former section 4062 applies to this claim.

From the decision · page 13Moreover, we have previously held in Simi v. Sav-Max Foods, Inc. (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 217 [2005 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 3] (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Simi), that because the legislature did not provide a medical-legal procedure for cases occurring prior to the effective date of SB899, "section 4062, as it existed before its amendment by SB 899, continues to provide the procedure by which AME and QME medical-legal reports are obtained in cases involving represented employees." (Id. at p. 221.)