ADJ18315308 · May 9, 2025

The WCJ and WCAB found that California has subject matter jurisdiction because applicant accepted a verbal offer of employment in California, forming a contract of hire under California law, and that the WCAB's jurisdiction is not preempted by federal law or the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 27, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from April 1, 2016 to March 1, 2019, sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, legs, nervous system, psychiatric/psyche, and "multiple parts." The WCJ found that California has subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim of injury.

Applicant accepted a verbal offer of employment while physically located in California, forming a contract of hire under California law.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact established California subject matter jurisdiction over the workers' compensation claim.

Applicant's testimony was found fully credible by the WCJ and accorded great weight by the WCAB.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Credibility of applicant's testimony supported the finding of contract formation and jurisdiction.

From the decision · page 10We also note that the WCJ found applicant's testimony to be fully credible. (Report, at p. 2.) We accord to the WCJ's credibility determinations the great weight to which they are entitled. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)

The WCAB concluded that the claim for California workers' compensation benefits can be resolved without interpreting the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement, thus not preempted by federal law.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the WCAB's jurisdiction over the claim despite defendant's preemption argument.

From the decision · page 19athlete, by the Seattle Seahawks, permissibly self-insured, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, neck, shoulders, back, spine, hips, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, legs, knees, ankles, feet, toes, internal system, ENT/TMJ, neuro/psych, hearing, vision, and sleep, resulting in chronic pain. 2. California has jurisdiction over applicant's claim of injury under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305. 3. The jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is not preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because applicant's claim for California workers' compensation benefits can be resolved without interpreting the NFL- NFLPA collective bargaining agreement.

California Constitution Article XIV, Section 4; Labor Code sections 3202, 5300, 5301; Daily v. Dallas Carriers Corp. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 720; McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23

California has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim when industrial injury occurs in California.

Applied to determine jurisdiction based on injury and contract formation in California.

From the decision · page 6The WCAB has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim when industrial injury occurs in California. (Cal. Const., Article XIV, § 4; Lab. Code, § 3202, 5300, 5301; Daily v. Dallas Carriers Corp. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 720, 726 [61 Cal.Comp.Cases 216] "[T]he California Workers' Compensation Act applies to a worker employed in another state who is injured while working in California"]; McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23, 27 (Appeals Board en banc) [the WCAB can exercise jurisdiction "over claims of cumulative industrial injury when a portion of the injurious exposure causing the cumulative injury occurred within the state"].)

Janzen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th 109

An oral contract consummated over the telephone is deemed made where the offeree utters the words of acceptance (Janzen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th 109).

Applied to find contract of hire formed in California when applicant accepted verbal offer by telephone.

From the decision · page 8California courts have also held that the formation of an oral contract in California is sufficient to confer jurisdiction under section 5305. Under California law, "an oral contract consummated over the telephone is deemed made where the offeree utters the words of acceptance." (Janzen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th 109, 114 [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 260], citing Coakley, supra, 68 Cal.2d 7, 14.) Pursuant to Civil Code section 1583, "[c]onsent is deemed to be fully communicated between the parties as soon as the party accepting a proposal has put his acceptance in the course of transmission to the proposer, in conformity to the last section." (Cal. Civ. Code, § 1583.) Thus, in Paula Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 426 [2000 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 6264] (writ denied), the telephonic offer of employment by an Oregon employer, as accepted by the father of a California farm laborer, was sufficient to form a contract of hire.

Labor Management Relations Act section 301; Melendez v. San Francisco Baseball Assoc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1

The WCAB is not preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act from exercising jurisdiction over workers' compensation claims that can be resolved without interpreting the collective bargaining agreement.

Applied to reject defendant's argument that WCAB lacks jurisdiction due to federal preemption.

From the decision · page 19athlete, by the Seattle Seahawks, permissibly self-insured, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, neck, shoulders, back, spine, hips, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, legs, knees, ankles, feet, toes, internal system, ENT/TMJ, neuro/psych, hearing, vision, and sleep, resulting in chronic pain. 2. California has jurisdiction over applicant's claim of injury under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305. 3. The jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is not preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because applicant's claim for California workers' compensation benefits can be resolved without interpreting the NFL- NFLPA collective bargaining agreement.

Applicant's credible testimony that he accepted a verbal offer of employment in California, forming a contract of hire.

From the decision · page 2On December 27, 2024, the WCJ issued his F&O, determining in relevant part that "California has jurisdiction over [a]pplicant's claim of injury under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305," and that "the WCAB is not precluded from the formation of applicant's contract for hire by Federal Law of the NFL-NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement." (Findings of Fact Nos. 2 & 3.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision explained that applicant's credible testimony established his acceptance of an offer of employment while at a restaurant in Agoura Hills, California. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 5.) Following his acceptance of an offer of employment, applicant flew to Seattle the next day and thereafter executed a written contract. (Ibid.) Applicant's acceptance of an offer of employment while in California resulted in a California hiring under section 5305, which in turn conferred California subject matter jurisdiction over the instant claim of industrial injury. With respect to the provisions of the governing CBA, the WCJ observed that the agreement "contains no express language specifying the time of contract formation nor does it