ADJ6966914 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Findings of Fact and Order of December 26, 2019 rescinded; substituted findings issued; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and new findings by WCJ

Petition for reconsideration granted; decision after reconsideration issued; matter remanded to WCJ for further proceedings on unresolved issues

Read the official decision →

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.

Cumulative traumaRemandedvarious parts of the body

The WCJ must revisit the date of cumulative trauma injury under section 5412 and apportionment of liability under section 5500.5, including whether liability may be rolled back to earlier employers for the period 2001-2003, due to unresolved factual and legal issues.

From the decision · page 6In summary, we conclude that the WCJ must revisit the date of cumulative trauma injury under section 5412 versus apportionment of liability under section 5500.5, the extent to which applicant's cumulative trauma injury had sufficient contacts to California from 2001-2003, and whether or not liability for the cumulative trauma from June 1, 1997 through December 31, 2007 may be "rolled back" to applicant's employment by the out-of-state teams from 2001-2003. We emphasize that no final opinion is expressed as to whether such "roll back" is legally permissible in this complex matter. When the WCJ issues a new decision on the outstanding issues, any aggrieved party may seek reconsideration as provided in Labor Code sections 5900 et seq.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant's cumulative trauma injury period is June 1, 1997 through December 31, 2007 as stipulated at trial.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This period defines the scope of injury and is central to jurisdiction and liability issues.

Applicant played games and received medical treatment in California from 2001 to 2003.

Favours Applicant prevailed

These facts are relevant to whether liability can be rolled back to earlier employers and to California's jurisdiction.

From the decision · page 4We conclude that the unresolved legal issues mentioned above also require the WCJ to revisit the factual issue of whether applicant had injurious exposure from 2001 to 2003. Based on applicant's trial testimony, it appears he played one game for the Baltimore Ravens in California in 2001 and four games for the Kansas City Chiefs from 2001-2002, the latter of which required applicant to obtain medical treatment in California. On the other hand, it appears the Kansas City Chiefs admit in their answer (9:19-22) that applicant played eight games for them in California from 2001-2003. The Baltimore Ravens fail to address this issue in their answer, and as noted above the WCJ's Report is unclear about it. Upon further proceedings at the trial level, the WCJ must revisit and clarify this factual issue.

There is a valid forum selection clause for the period 2006 through 2007 but not for 2001 through 2003.

Favours neutral

This affects the ability to exercise jurisdiction and apportion liability for the earlier period.

From the decision · page 6FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, while employed during the period June 1, 1997 through December 31, 2007 as a professional football player, at various locations by the Baltimore Ravens for the period June 1, 1997 through January 14, 2001, and by the Kansas City Chiefs for the period April 23, 2001 through December 31, 2007, claims to have sustained injury to various parts of his body. 2. The Court finds that she has jurisdiction over this case and controversy and that the State of California has a legitimate interest in this case. 3. The Court finds that she is bound by a forum selection clause for the period 2006 through 2007 but not for the period 2001 through 2003. 4. The Court finds applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. 5. All other issues are deferred.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's testimony and medical opinions establish cumulative trauma injury period through 2007.

From the decision · page 1In the Findings of Fact and Order of December 26, 2019, the Workers' Compensation Judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, while employed during the period June 1, 1997 through December 31, 2007 as a professional football player, at various locations by the Baltimore Ravens for the period June 1, 1997 through January 14, 2001, and by the Kansas City Chiefs for the period April 23, 2001 through December 31, 2007, claims to have sustained injury to various parts of his body, that based on the medical opinions of Dr. Luciano and Dr. Glatstein as well as the testimony of the applicant, the date of injury is 2006 through 2007 pursuant to Labor Code section 5500.5, that the WCAB has jurisdiction over this case and controversy, that the State of California has a legitimate interest in this case, that the WCAB is bound by a forum selection clause for the period 2006 through 2007 but not for the period 2001 through 2003, that the relation back doctrine does not apply, that the WCAB declines to exercise jurisdiction over this claim because there is a forum selection clause in effect during the last year of cumulative trauma pursuant to Labor Code section 5500.5, that the Baltimore Ravens have no liability on this

work activityfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's playing and treatment in California from 2001-2003 relevant to jurisdiction and liability roll back.

From the decision · page 4We conclude that the unresolved legal issues mentioned above also require the WCJ to revisit the factual issue of whether applicant had injurious exposure from 2001 to 2003. Based on applicant's trial testimony, it appears he played one game for the Baltimore Ravens in California in 2001 and four games for the Kansas City Chiefs from 2001-2002, the latter of which required applicant to obtain medical treatment in California. On the other hand, it appears the Kansas City Chiefs admit in their answer (9:19-22) that applicant played eight games for them in California from 2001-2003. The Baltimore Ravens fail to address this issue in their answer, and as noted above the WCJ's Report is unclear about it. Upon further proceedings at the trial level, the WCJ must revisit and clarify this factual issue.

ADJ6966914 · December 30, 2022

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page