ADJ11706407 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB granted the Petition for Reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review of the merits and entire record.

Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the January 13, 2025 Findings of Fact by the WCJ; the WCAB granted the Petition for Reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.

Read the official decision →

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.

Jurisdiction / venueRemanded

The WCAB found that the issues of jurisdiction and res judicata were not clearly resolved in the prior order and that reconsideration was necessary to fully study the factual and legal issues.

From the decision · page 6Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that the record is clear as to whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion applies. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

The facts that decided it

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

The August 18, 2008 Order dismissing the Jacksonville Jaguars was not a judgment on the merits of jurisdiction issues.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supports the WCAB's decision to grant reconsideration to further study jurisdiction issues.

From the decision · page 5On January 13, 2025 the Undersigned Judge issued his FINDINGS OF FACT in which, in relevant part, he found that: The Jacksonville Jaguars waived personal jurisdiction; California and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has personal jurisdiction over the Jacksonville Jaguars; The August 18, 2008, Order dismissing the Jacksonville Jaguars was not a judgment on the merits of the issues of jurisdiction as they pertain to the Jacksonville Jaguars; The August 18, 2008, Compromise and Release was not a judgment on the merits of the applicant's alleged industrial injuries as they pertain to the Jacksonville Jaguars; The doctrine of res judicata does not bar the Court from asserting personnel jurisdiction over the Jacksonville Jaguars; There is a sufficient relationship with the applicant's injuries to make the application of California workers' compensation law reasonable; and The applicant's claim against the Jacksonville Jaguars does not violate the Jacksonville Jaguars' right to due process.

The doctrine of res judicata does not bar the Court from asserting personal jurisdiction over the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supports the WCAB's decision to grant reconsideration to further study jurisdiction issues.

From the decision · page 5On January 13, 2025 the Undersigned Judge issued his FINDINGS OF FACT in which, in relevant part, he found that: The Jacksonville Jaguars waived personal jurisdiction; California and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has personal jurisdiction over the Jacksonville Jaguars; The August 18, 2008, Order dismissing the Jacksonville Jaguars was not a judgment on the merits of the issues of jurisdiction as they pertain to the Jacksonville Jaguars; The August 18, 2008, Compromise and Release was not a judgment on the merits of the applicant's alleged industrial injuries as they pertain to the Jacksonville Jaguars; The doctrine of res judicata does not bar the Court from asserting personnel jurisdiction over the Jacksonville Jaguars; There is a sufficient relationship with the applicant's injuries to make the application of California workers' compensation law reasonable; and The applicant's claim against the Jacksonville Jaguars does not violate the Jacksonville Jaguars' right to due process.

The applicant's claim against the Jacksonville Jaguars does not violate the Jacksonville Jaguars' right to due process.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supports the WCAB's decision to grant reconsideration to further study jurisdiction issues.

From the decision · page 5On January 13, 2025 the Undersigned Judge issued his FINDINGS OF FACT in which, in relevant part, he found that: The Jacksonville Jaguars waived personal jurisdiction; California and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has personal jurisdiction over the Jacksonville Jaguars; The August 18, 2008, Order dismissing the Jacksonville Jaguars was not a judgment on the merits of the issues of jurisdiction as they pertain to the Jacksonville Jaguars; The August 18, 2008, Compromise and Release was not a judgment on the merits of the applicant's alleged industrial injuries as they pertain to the Jacksonville Jaguars; The doctrine of res judicata does not bar the Court from asserting personnel jurisdiction over the Jacksonville Jaguars; There is a sufficient relationship with the applicant's injuries to make the application of California workers' compensation law reasonable; and The applicant's claim against the Jacksonville Jaguars does not violate the Jacksonville Jaguars' right to due process.

ADJ11706407 · April 15, 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

The rules the panel named

About this page