ADJ12223070 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.

Applicant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration on February 8, 2022, after the WCJ found no subject matter jurisdiction. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on July 24, 2025, recommending denial. The Appeals Board granted 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 / venueApplicant prevailed

The Appeals Board found no substantial evidence to support the WCJ's finding of no subject matter jurisdiction and granted reconsideration to further review the merits and entire record.

From the decision · page 8Based on our review, we are not persuaded that there is substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction without additional development of the record. 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 rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Lab. Code, § 5909

Labor Code section 5909 regarding time limits for acting on petitions for reconsideration and equitable tolling.

The Appeals Board applied equitable tolling to the 60-day period for acting on the petition due to administrative delay.

From the decision · page 2I. Former Labor Code1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: "(a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board." Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in EAMS. Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board." When the Appeals Board does not review the petition within 60 days due to irregularities outside the petitioner's control, and the 60-day period lapses through no fault of the petitioner, the Appeals Board must then consider whether circumstances exist to allow an equitable remedy, such as equitable tolling. It is well-settled that the Appeals Board has broad equitable powers. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v.

Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274

Substantial evidence standard for Appeals Board decisions.

The Appeals Board found no substantial evidence to support the WCJ's jurisdiction finding without further record development.

From the decision · page 8Moreover, it is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) "The term `substantial evidence' means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion...It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.)

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

activities of daily livingfavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant was a resident of California during his professional baseball career but never played or practiced games in California, nor participated in spring training in California.

From the decision · page 6At no time during his career as a professional athlete did the applicant ever play any games or practice games in California. In addition, the applicant never participated in spring training in California. The applicant testified that while with the Oklahoma City Dodgers, he never played with any of the Dodgers California affiliates (SOE 7/29/2021 page 6- 7 lines 24-3). During the off-season the applicant would workout. The applicant paid for his own gym memberships and paid out of pocket during the off-season for his personal trainer (SOE page 8 lines 11-17). During the off-season, the applicant never received any medical treatment in California (SOE 7/29/2021 page 5 lines 20- 21).

Documentary evidencefavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant signed a Minor League Uniform Player Contract in Idaho with a clause that Maryland workers' compensation laws exclusively apply.

From the decision · page 5the applicant, was a resident of the State of California during the time he played professional baseball Summary of Evidence (SOE) 7/29/2021 page 2 lines 11-12). In June 2009, the applicant signed his Minor League Uniform Player Contract with the Orioles while in Idaho attending college (SOE 7/29/2021 page 3 lines 1-3, page 6 lines 6-7). The Contract was a seven-year contract executed in Idaho (Exhibit Joint A). The contract contained Addendum F that states that the "player promises and agrees that any workers' compensation claims, dispute or cause of action arising out of Player's employment with Club shall be subject to the worker's compensation laws of the State of Maryland exclusively and not the worker's compensation laws of any other state." After the applicant signed the initial contract, the applicant signed Addendum C on an annual basis. Addendum C refers to the Minor League Uniform Contract originally signed by the applicant. Addendum C outlines the salary the player will receive during season. The applicant signed some of the yearly Addendum C's in California. The employer witness testified that Addendum C is signed on an annual basis and outlines salary. It is not a new contract. If the applicant only signed Addendum C the player would not be considered an

ADJ12223070 · August 4, 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

What proof carried it

About this page