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