What the panel ordered
Further briefing allowed; final decision pending after review of additional briefing
Petition for reconsideration granted to study factual and legal issues regarding subject matter jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5; further briefing ordered to consider impact of recent Court of Appeal decision Gandy (2025)
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.
The WCJ found no jurisdiction because applicant was not hired or regularly employed in California, but reconsideration was granted to consider the impact of the Court of Appeal decision Gandy (2025) which interprets 'hire' under section 3600.5 and favors a liberal construction to find California jurisdiction when a California-based team is involved.
From the decision · page 1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the May 26, 2022 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("WCAB") cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim because he was not hired in California, did not regularly work here, and because California has no legitimate interest in his cumulative injury claim. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because he was in fact hired in California and/or regularly employed here, thereby establishing subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivisions (a). 2 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 section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Specifically, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was not hired in California and did not regularly work in California according to the WCJ's original findings
Favours Defendant prevailed
This was the basis for the WCJ's finding of no subject matter jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5
From the decision · page 1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the May 26, 2022 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("WCAB") cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim because he was not hired in California, did not regularly work here, and because California has no legitimate interest in his cumulative injury claim. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because he was in fact hired in California and/or regularly employed here, thereby establishing subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivisions (a). 2 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 section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Specifically, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:
The Court of Appeal decision Gandy (2025) interprets 'hire' under Labor Code section 3600.5 liberally to favor finding California jurisdiction when a California-based team is involved
Favours Applicant prevailed
This new legal interpretation prompted the WCAB to grant reconsideration and allow further briefing on the jurisdictional issue
From the decision · page 1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the May 26, 2022 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("WCAB") cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim because he was not hired in California, did not regularly work here, and because California has no legitimate interest in his cumulative injury claim. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because he was in fact hired in California and/or regularly employed here, thereby establishing subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivisions (a). 2 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 section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Specifically, 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, 25
Liberal construction of contract and facts in favor of finding California jurisdiction for workers' compensation claims involving California-based teams
Applied to interpret Labor Code section 3600.5 in light of Gandy (2025)
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.
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.