ADJ9146501 · February 6, 2023

The applicant's cumulative trauma injury exposure in California was only about 3% of his total career, insufficient to establish a significant connection to California for jurisdiction under Johnson, and the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process.

From the decision · page 5Here, applicant appears to have played four games in California during the course of his professional career, and also testified to participating in practices during a fifth trip to California, though he did not actually play in that game. Applicant does not appear to contest the WCJ's finding that he played in at least 146 games across his career, each with their own associated practices.3 Therefore, even viewing matters in the light most favorable to applicant, it appears that his total California exposure amounts to at best approximately 3% of his total playing career almost exactly the same percentage as in Johnson, where one game out of 34 also represented roughly 3% of the injury exposure the Johnson Court considered.

Applicant played approximately 146 games in his career, with only about 3% of exposure in California.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This minimal California exposure was insufficient to establish a significant connection for jurisdiction under Johnson.

From the decision · page 5Here, applicant appears to have played four games in California during the course of his professional career, and also testified to participating in practices during a fifth trip to California, though he did not actually play in that game. Applicant does not appear to contest the WCJ's finding that he played in at least 146 games across his career, each with their own associated practices.3 Therefore, even viewing matters in the light most favorable to applicant, it appears that his total California exposure amounts to at best approximately 3% of his total playing career almost exactly the same percentage as in Johnson, where one game out of 34 also represented roughly 3% of the injury exposure the Johnson Court considered.

Applicant's injuries and medical treatment in California were similar to those outside California, showing no unique connection to California work.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This supported the conclusion that the cumulative trauma injury was not particularly traceable to California.

From the decision · page 5That said, we do not agree that the evidence presented in this case is such evidence. To be sure, applicant did introduce evidence showing that applicant sustained injuries and received medical treatment while in this state. However, the thrust of applicant's testimony was that his job duties in California, and therefore the resulting injuries and medical treatment, were of the same kind as what he experienced in the remainder of his job. Far from showing that his cumulative trauma injury is particularly traceable to his work in California, applicant's testimony illustrates the opposite. In other words, applicant's testimony and the medical records introduced at trial show that it is in fact reasonable to infer that the percentage of applicant's games and

Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116

The claim may be heard in California workers' compensation system if the injury has a significant connection or nexus to California, assessed as a due process issue.

The court applied Johnson to determine that the applicant's injury exposure in California was insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

From the decision · page 4Where there is statutory subject-matter jurisdiction, the WCAB may assert that jurisdiction in a given workers' compensation injury claim when the evidence establishes that an employment related injury, which is the subject matter, has a significant connection or nexus to the state of California. (See § 5300, 5301; King, supra, 270 F.2d at 360; Johnson, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at 1128.) Whether there is a significant connection or nexus to the State of California is best described as an issue of due process, though it has also been referred to as a question of subject- matter jurisdiction. (New York Knickerbockers v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Macklin) (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1238; Johnson, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at 1128.)

Applicant's testimony and medical records showed that injuries and treatment in California were similar to those outside California, indicating no unique connection to California work.

From the decision · page 5That said, we do not agree that the evidence presented in this case is such evidence. To be sure, applicant did introduce evidence showing that applicant sustained injuries and received medical treatment while in this state. However, the thrust of applicant's testimony was that his job duties in California, and therefore the resulting injuries and medical treatment, were of the same kind as what he experienced in the remainder of his job. Far from showing that his cumulative trauma injury is particularly traceable to his work in California, applicant's testimony illustrates the opposite. In other words, applicant's testimony and the medical records introduced at trial show that it is in fact reasonable to infer that the percentage of applicant's games and