What the panel ordered
Findings and Order issued on July 30, 2019, affirmed
Petition for Reconsideration granted to study jurisdictional issues; decision after reconsideration issued affirming prior Findings and Order
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 WCJ and WCAB found that subject matter jurisdiction exists because the applicant's contract of hire was made in California, which confers jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305, and section 3600.5(d) does not exempt the defendant as it applies only when no contract of hire was made in California.
From the decision · page 1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that subject matter jurisdiction exists over applicant's claim of cumulative injury as applicant was a California resident who executed his contract of hire in California, and that the Atlanta Braves were not excluded from subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3600.5(d). The WCJ further found that the forum selection clause in applicant's contract was not enforceable.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant signed his contract of hire with the Atlanta Braves in California at his parents' home in Clovis, CA.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This establishes that the contract of hire was made in California, conferring subject matter jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 3600.5(a), 3600.5(d), 5305
Subject matter jurisdiction requires that the contract of hire was made in California to apply California workers' compensation law to extra-territorial injuries.
The contract of hire was made in California, so subject matter jurisdiction exists; section 3600.5(d) does not exempt the defendant because it applies only when no contract of hire was made in California.
From the decision · page 5Turning to defendant's petition for reconsideration, defendant argues that section 3600.5(d) overrides section 3600.5(a). It does not. Section 3600.5(d) applies only in cases where no contract of hire was made in California.
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.