What the panel ordered
The March 11, 2019 Findings and Order is rescinded and the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if applicant was hired in California.
Petition for Reconsideration granted to further develop the record on whether applicant was hired in California during the relevant period.
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.
The Board concluded that the claim is barred under section 3600.5(d) unless applicant can establish he was hired in California on at least one contract during the relevant period. The matter is remanded for further development of the record on this issue.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the WCJ for further development of the record on the issue of whether applicant was hired in California, because we conclude in the absence of a
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant worked seven or more seasons for non-California based teams, failing to meet the requirement of fewer than seven seasons under subdivision (d)(1)(B).
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supports the conclusion that the claim is barred under section 3600.5(d) absent a California hire.
From the decision · page 16The stipulations of the parties also appear to establish, however, that applicant worked seven or more seasons for non-California based teams, and therefore that he cannot meet the requirements of subdivision (d)(1)(B). Specifically, the parties stipulated that applicant worked for the Orioles during the 1996 season, for the Yankees during the 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 seasons, and for the Orioles again during the 2004 season. This amounts to seven seasons, while the subdivision requires applicant to have worked fewer than seven seasons.
Applicant's testimony regarding being hired in California was tentative and not definitive, requiring further development of the record.
Favours neutral
The Board remanded the case to develop evidence on whether applicant was hired in California, which is critical to jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 20Standing alone, we question whether this testimony is sufficient to establish that applicant was hired in California; although documentary evidence is not required to establish a hiring in California, here applicant's testimony was at best tentatively affirmative, rather than a definitive assertion of a California hire. However, it does appear sufficient to require further development of the record particularly because the trial in this matter preceded our decision in Hansell, and therefore the parties may not have been fully aware of how critical the issue was to the resolution of the claim. Certainly, the fact that neither party attempted to elicit further testimony on this possible California hire suggests a lack of recognition by the parties as to the importance of the issue.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3600.5 subdivision (d)
Labor Code section 3600.5 subdivision (d)
The Board applied this statute to determine the jurisdictional bar and the conditions under which the claim may be heard in California.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the WCJ for further development of the record on the issue of whether applicant was hired in California, because we conclude in the absence of a
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.