ADJ13153374 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Further briefing allowed; final decision pending

Petition for reconsideration granted to study factual and legal issues; further briefing ordered

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 / venueDeferred

The WCJ found no jurisdiction because applicant was neither hired nor regularly employed in California, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the impact of the Gandy decision, which interprets the meaning of 'hire' in California workers' compensation law and favors a liberal construction to find California jurisdiction when the employer is California-based.

From the decision · page 1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the May 12, 2021 Joint Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found no jurisdiction over applicant's specific and cumulative injury claims based upon findings that applicant was neither hired nor regularly employed in California. Applicant asserts that the WCJ erred because defendant is a California-based team that directed and controlled applicant's employment from California and that directed applicant to undergo surgery in this state for work-related injuries. We received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration ("Report"), recommending that the Petition be denied. Subsequent to the grant of reconsideration, the Court of Appeal issued Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] ("Gandy"), a decision interpreting Labor Code2 section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Of specific relevance to this case, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:

The rules the panel named

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

Bowen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 15

Liberal construction of contract and facts in favor of finding California jurisdiction for workers' compensation claims when employer is California-based

Applied to interpret Labor Code section 3600.5 and determine jurisdiction over applicant's claims

From the decision · page 2Significantly, in determining whether a particular contract is a California contract for hire, California courts ordinarily apply a liberal construction of both the law and the facts in favor of finding California jurisdiction. ([Bowen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 15, 25].) The Bowen court explained through a series of examples that this rule allows even a relatively minimal connection between the contract and the State of California to be sufficient to construe the contract as a California contract for hire, even if the typical rules of contract interpretation would deem the contract to have been made somewhere else. (Id. at pp. 20§ 25.) Accordingly, it is unlikely a California-based team would ever be determined to have entered a non- California contract for hire, for the simple reason that the California-based team's location in California would supply the necessary connection to California to deem the contract a California contract.

Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268

Interpretation of Labor Code section 3600.5 regarding 'hire' in California for workers' compensation jurisdiction

Guided reconsideration and further briefing on jurisdictional issues

From the decision · page 1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the May 12, 2021 Joint Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found no jurisdiction over applicant's specific and cumulative injury claims based upon findings that applicant was neither hired nor regularly employed in California. Applicant asserts that the WCJ erred because defendant is a California-based team that directed and controlled applicant's employment from California and that directed applicant to undergo surgery in this state for work-related injuries. We received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration ("Report"), recommending that the Petition be denied. Subsequent to the grant of reconsideration, the Court of Appeal issued Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] ("Gandy"), a decision interpreting Labor Code2 section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Of specific relevance to this case, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:

ADJ13153374 · April 17, 2026

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