What the panel ordered
The WCAB denied defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ's Findings of Fact.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by the WCJ on February 5, 2020, contending Arizona had exclusive jurisdiction over the injury claim.
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 legitimate and substantial interest in protecting injured workers and the applicant was regularly in California doing business for the employer, making California jurisdiction appropriate.
From the decision · page 3We agree with the WCJ that the applicant in this matter was not temporarily within this state doing work for his employer as a minimum of 23.6% or 35% of his deliveries were made in California. Additionally, it is undisputed that the incident causing applicant's injury occurred at a California truck stop and applicant received medical attention in California. (Cf. Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1126 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257] [location of injury and medical treatment are factors to consider in deciding if California workers' compensation applies].) Therefore, California has a strong interest in covering applicant under California's workers' compensation system.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant made at least 23.6% of deliveries in California regularly, not just temporarily.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established a substantial connection to California, supporting California's jurisdiction over the claim.
Injury occurred at a California truck stop and medical treatment was received in California.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These factors supported the Board's finding that California has a strong interest in covering the applicant under its workers' compensation system.
From the decision · page 3We agree with the WCJ that the applicant in this matter was not temporarily within this state doing work for his employer as a minimum of 23.6% or 35% of his deliveries were made in California. Additionally, it is undisputed that the incident causing applicant's injury occurred at a California truck stop and applicant received medical attention in California. (Cf. Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1126 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257] [location of injury and medical treatment are factors to consider in deciding if California workers' compensation applies].) Therefore, California has a strong interest in covering applicant under California's workers' compensation system.
WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight as the WCJ observed witness demeanor.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Board found no substantial evidence to reject the WCJ's credibility findings, supporting the outcome.
From the decision · page 3Further, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) We conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3600.5(b)
Labor Code section 3600.5(b) regarding jurisdiction over injuries for employees temporarily in California
The Board applied this statute to determine that the applicant was not temporarily in California under the meaning of the statute, thus California jurisdiction applies.
From the decision · page 3We agree with the WCJ that the applicant in this matter was not temporarily within this state doing work for his employer as a minimum of 23.6% or 35% of his deliveries were made in California. Additionally, it is undisputed that the incident causing applicant's injury occurred at a California truck stop and applicant received medical attention in California. (Cf. Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1126 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257] [location of injury and medical treatment are factors to consider in deciding if California workers' compensation applies].) Therefore, California has a strong interest in covering applicant under California's workers' compensation system.
McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23
McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23 (Appeals Board en banc)
The Board relied on this en banc decision to support California's jurisdiction when there is a sufficient connection to the state.
From the decision · page 2protecting employees injured at work. (See McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony and delivery schedules showing regular deliveries in California
From the decision · page 5According to the credible testimony of the applicant, and the daily delivery schedule of the applicant, admitted into evidence without objection as Applicant's Exhibit 1 (See EAMS Doc. ID 71638404), and the route schedules, time sheets and GPS data sheets admitted into evidence without objection as Defendant's Exhibit E (See EAMS Doc. ID 71638469), the applicant made deliveries in the State of California on a regular basis. Although the majority of the applicant's routes were outside the State of California, the court does not believe that the applicant was only "temporarily in the state doing business for the employer". As such, the court finds that the
Location of injury at a California truck stop and medical treatment in California
From the decision · page 3We agree with the WCJ that the applicant in this matter was not temporarily within this state doing work for his employer as a minimum of 23.6% or 35% of his deliveries were made in California. Additionally, it is undisputed that the incident causing applicant's injury occurred at a California truck stop and applicant received medical attention in California. (Cf. Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1126 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257] [location of injury and medical treatment are factors to consider in deciding if California workers' compensation applies].) Therefore, California has a strong interest in covering applicant under California's workers' compensation system.
WCJ's credibility determinations given great weight due to opportunity to observe witnesses
From the decision · page 3Further, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) We conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.