What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant claims industrial injury to multiple body parts including head, neck, shoulders, and psyche.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This establishes the scope of the claimed injury relevant to jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the October 9, 2023 Findings and Order, wherein the
workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as
a professional athlete from June 1, 2008 to October 1, 2017, claims to have sustained industrial
injury to the head, neck, shoulders, elbow, wrists, hands, fingers, back, hips, knees, ankles, feet,
toes, "neuro," psyche, sleep issues, and chronic pain. The WCJ found that California lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury.
Applicant contends he was regularly working in California during a portion of his cumulative injury period.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This contention is central to conferring California subject matter jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(a).
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that he was regularly working in the state during a portion of his
claimed cumulative injury, conferring California subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.
The WCJ initially found lack of California subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This finding was the basis for the original denial, which the Board reconsidered.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the October 9, 2023 Findings and Order, wherein the
workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as
a professional athlete from June 1, 2008 to October 1, 2017, claims to have sustained industrial
injury to the head, neck, shoulders, elbow, wrists, hands, fingers, back, hips, knees, ankles, feet,
toes, "neuro," psyche, sleep issues, and chronic pain. The WCJ found that California lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury.
The Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the entire record in light of applicable law.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This procedural action allows for a more thorough examination of jurisdictional issues, favoring the applicant's position.
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. Based upon our preliminary review of the
record, we will grant applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for
Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is
deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further
consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a
final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may
timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 et seq.