ADJ7217330 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Findings of Fact of February 21, 2019 rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings consistent with opinion.

Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings of Fact of February 21, 2019 rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings to determine if applicant was hired in California and to proceed accordingly.

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.

Jurisdiction / venueRemanded

The WCAB held that if the applicant was hired in California, the forum selection clause in his contract is unenforceable and does not bar WCAB jurisdiction. The WCJ did not make a finding on the hire location, so the case was remanded for that factual determination.

From the decision · page 1Applicant sought reconsideration of the February 21, 2019 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concluded that although applicant had been hired in California, the WCAB nevertheless lacked jurisdiction over his claim due to the presence of a forum selection clause in his contract, requiring him to bring his workers' compensation claim in Wisconsin instead of California. Applicant contests this determination, arguing that the fact of his hire in California renders the forum selection clause unenforceable and makes California an appropriate forum for his claim.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant signed the contract in California and was in California when offered the contract.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supports that the contract of hire was made in California, which confers WCAB jurisdiction despite the forum selection clause.

From the decision · page 2When applicant was offered his 2003 Packers contract, he was in California, having travelled there from Las Vegas with a friend. (Ibid.) He was at the Beverly Hills Marriott Residence Inn when Landphere contacted him and advised him about the contract. (Ibid.) He signed the contract in California. (Ibid.) When applicant was first deposed, he didn't remember where he signed the contract, but since then, he found the contract at his house and remembered some of the details. (Ibid.)

The WCJ did not make a finding that applicant was hired in California.

Favours neutral

Without this finding, the WCAB could not enforce or reject the forum selection clause, necessitating remand for factual determination.

From the decision · page 6That said, we are cognizant that the WCJ did not technically make a finding that applicant was hired in California. Instead, the Findings of Fact are limited to a single finding that the forum selection clause prevents the exercise of jurisdiction. We also observe that the issue of whether applicant was hired in California was the primary issue litigated by the parties, but that the lack of a finding as to that issue significantly complicated the ability of the parties to argue that issue on reconsideration. We are therefore hesitant to simply substitute a new order finding that applicant was hired in California, as we think that issue is best left to the WCJ herself, whose credibility determinations are due great weight due to her ability to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, and who can articulate her reasons more clearly in a new decision. (See Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318§ 319.)

ADJ7217330 · September 10, 2024

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

The rules the panel named

About this page