What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Orders issued on August 15, 2023, which found no subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury. The WCJ recommended denial of the Petition for Reconsideration. The Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.
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 Appeals Board found that the applicant satisfied the requirements of Labor Code section 3600.5(d) for subject matter jurisdiction based on his two-season career with an affiliate of a California-based team, contrary to the WCJ's finding of no jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Orders (F&O), issued on August 15, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from June 1, 2010 to March 3, 2012, claims to have sustained industrial injury to the right arm, right elbow and right shoulders. The WCJ determined that applicant was not hired in California, and was not injured in California, and accordingly that there was no subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant played two seasons for an affiliate of a California-based team during his professional athletic career.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact satisfied the requirements of Labor Code section 3600.5(d) for establishing subject matter jurisdiction in California despite the injury occurring outside California.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Orders (F&O), issued on August 15, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from June 1, 2010 to March 3, 2012, claims to have sustained industrial injury to the right arm, right elbow and right shoulders. The WCJ determined that applicant was not hired in California, and was not injured in California, and accordingly that there was no subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 3600.5
Applied to determine subject matter jurisdiction for professional athletes injured outside California but with ties to California-based teams.
From the decision · page 2(a) If an employee who has been hired or is regularly working in the state receives personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment outside of this state, he or she, or his or her dependents, in the case of his or her death, shall be entitled to compensation according to the law of this state.
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.