ADJ9082985 — California WCAB decision

ADJ9082985 · May 16, 2024

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the First Amended Findings and Order, denying the Petition for Reconsideration and upholding the WCJ's decision that California does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Santa Ana

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant seeking review of the First Amended Findings and Order issued May 30, 2019, after the WCJ rescinded an earlier decision and reissued the findings.

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 / venueDefendant prevailedhead · vision · jaw · neck · back · shoulders · elbows · wrist · hands · fingers · hips · knees · ankles · feet · toes · neuro/psyche · internal · cardiovascular · heart · hypertension · sleep

The WCJ found no California contract of hire and insufficient contacts between the injury and California to justify jurisdiction, supported by substantial evidence including applicant's deposition and medical reports.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Order (F&O) issued on May 30, 2019, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from July 1, 1965 to July 1, 1975 claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his head, vision, jaw, neck, back, shoulders, elbows, wrist, hands, fingers, hips, knees, ankles, feet, toes, neuro/psyche, internal, cardiovascular, heart, hypertension, sleep, and injuries resulting in his death. The WCJ found that applicant's employment contracts were entered into outside the State of California, and that California does not have a legitimate and substantial interest in applicant's claim sufficient to compel defendant to adjudicate the claim under the laws of California.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant's deposition testimony that he signed his contracts outside California was given greater weight than his spouse's hearsay testimony claiming contracts were signed in California.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This credibility finding led to the conclusion that no California contract of hire existed, negating jurisdiction on that basis.

From the decision · page 7Applicant's deposition was taken on November 16, 2016, where he testified that he signed two contracts during the course of his career; both times these were signed in New York for the Knicks. (Defendant Chesapeake/Washington Exhibit V, page 33 line 6 through 19). He testified that his agent at the time was Norm Blass who operated from New York City and that was where he physically signed his first contract with the Knicks. (Defendant Chesapeake/Washington Exhibit V, page 12, line 1). He later testified that when he went on to play for the Baltimore Bullets he signed a third contract in Maryland. (Defendant Chesapeake/Washington Exhibit V, page 33 line 16 though page 34 line 1).

Medical evidence, particularly from Dr. Jonathan Green, did not support the occurrence of heart attacks in California or a cumulative injury greater in California than elsewhere.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This medical finding supported the conclusion that California did not have a legitimate and substantial interest to exercise jurisdiction based on injury contacts.

From the decision · page 10The qualitative aspect of the Johnson test measures the injurious nature of applicants' cumulative trauma injury and whether or not the exposure sustained in California was greater than that in other jurisdictions. This WCJ considered the submitted medical reports and found that the more credible medical reporting indicated that applicant did not sustain a cumulative injury as the result of his professional basketball career. Of those medical reports that do find industrial injury, none indicate that the California exposure was of a greater nature than that experienced elsewhere.

The rules the panel named

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

California Labor Code

Labor Code sections 3600.5(a), 5305, 5903 provide jurisdictional basis for contract of hire and injury claims.

The WCJ applied these statutes to assess subject matter jurisdiction based on contract formation and injury location.

From the decision · page 5Applicant first contends that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is vested with subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury because applicant entered into a contract of hire while within California's territorial boundaries.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 116

Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 116 establishes a two-part test for jurisdiction based on the qualitative and quantitative nature of injury exposure in California.

The WCJ and panel applied the Johnson test to determine that California's interest in adjudicating the claim was not legitimate or substantial due to minimal contacts.

From the decision · page 4Absent a California contract of hire, the WCJ then discussed the merits of applicant's claim of subject matter jurisdiction based on the contacts between applicant's claimed injury and the forum state of California. The WCJ cited to Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 116 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257], wherein "the Court addressed the threshold question of whether California's interest in adjudicating applicant's claim for workers' compensation `is legitimate and substantial in itself,'" and that as a result, the court was required to "consider the length of applicant's exposure in California in relation to applicant's overall employment and the extent to which the micro trauma sustained in California contributed to applicant's cumulative injury." (Opinion on Decision, at p. 8, quoting Johnson, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 1124).

ADJ9082985 · May 16, 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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page