ADJ19384154 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review of merits and entire record

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 / venueRemanded

The WCJ found personal jurisdiction over the Dodgers and that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) do not bar the claim; however, the Appeals Board found concerns about substantial evidence on hire and work in California by the Dodgers, requiring further review.

From the decision · page 3(See Defendants' Trial Brief, at p. 1 ["It does appear there is personal jurisdiction over the Cardinals based on applicant's testimony that he worked in California briefly for the Cardinals in 2012."].) The matter went to trial on three issues: (1) subject matter jurisdiction over the case; (2) personal jurisdiction over each defendant; and (3) whether any defendant is exempt according to section 3600.5. (Minutes of Hearing / Summary of Evidence ("MOH/SOE"), 9/9/2025, at p. 2.) Applicant was the sole witness to testify. (MOH/SOE, 11/10/2025, at pp. 2§ 11.) The WCJ issued his F&O on March 2, 2026, finding as relevant to this Petition (1) personal jurisdiction over the Dodgers, and (2) that section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) do not bar applicant's claim. The appended Opinion on Decision makes clear that the WCJ based his finding on the rationale that the Dodgers, a California-based employer, employed applicant during the last year of his professional career. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 6§ 8.) The F&O deferred the question of personal jurisdiction over the other defendants. (F&O, at p. 3.)

The facts that decided it

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

The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on April 8, 2026, and the Appeals Board acted within 60 days on June 8, 2026.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This timing made the Petition for Reconsideration timely and valid.

From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

The WCJ found personal jurisdiction over the Dodgers and that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) do not bar the claim.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supports applicant's claim against Dodgers, but the Appeals Board found concerns requiring further review.

From the decision · page 3(See Defendants' Trial Brief, at p. 1 ["It does appear there is personal jurisdiction over the Cardinals based on applicant's testimony that he worked in California briefly for the Cardinals in 2012."].) The matter went to trial on three issues: (1) subject matter jurisdiction over the case; (2) personal jurisdiction over each defendant; and (3) whether any defendant is exempt according to section 3600.5. (Minutes of Hearing / Summary of Evidence ("MOH/SOE"), 9/9/2025, at p. 2.) Applicant was the sole witness to testify. (MOH/SOE, 11/10/2025, at pp. 2§ 11.) The WCJ issued his F&O on March 2, 2026, finding as relevant to this Petition (1) personal jurisdiction over the Dodgers, and (2) that section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) do not bar applicant's claim. The appended Opinion on Decision makes clear that the WCJ based his finding on the rationale that the Dodgers, a California-based employer, employed applicant during the last year of his professional career. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 6§ 8.) The F&O deferred the question of personal jurisdiction over the other defendants. (F&O, at p. 3.)

There may be a lack of substantial evidence on how applicant was hired by Dodgers and whether applicant performed work in California during last year.

Favours neutral

Requires further consideration and review of entire record to resolve exemption under section 3600.5(c).

From the decision · page 7Significantly, that subdivision depends upon the applicant having been hired outside of California by allegedly exempt employer, in this case the Dodgers. Gandy appears to suggest that if applicant was hired by the Dodgers, he should be deemed to have been hired in California, because the Dodgers are a California-based team. However, we are concerned that there may be a lack of substantial evidence in the record to determine whether and by what means applicant was hired by the Dodgers when he was traded to them by the Nationals. We are also concerned as to whether there is substantial evidence in the record to determine whether applicant performed any work for the Dodgers in California during his last year of employment, such that section 3600.5, subdivision (c) could potentially apply to his claim at all. Further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law is required in order to determine the best way to resolve these questions.

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code section 5909

A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

The Appeals Board acted within 60 days of case transmission, making the petition timely.

From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

Labor Code sections 5300, 5301, 5305

The WCAB may assert subject matter jurisdiction when there is a significant connection or nexus to California, including under Labor Code sections 5300, 5301, and 5305.

The WCJ found personal jurisdiction over the Dodgers based on their California location and employment of applicant.

From the decision · page 4The instant Petition for Reconsideration followed. In general, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("WCAB") may assert its subject matter 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; Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116, 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.) Section 5300 provides a general grant of jurisdiction over claims for compensation for work-related injuries occurring in the state of California.

Labor Code section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d)

Section 3600.5(c) exempts professional athletes hired outside California if the employer provides workers' compensation insurance coverage from another state covering work in California.

The Dodgers claim exemption under section 3600.5(c), but the record lacks substantial evidence on hire and work in California, requiring further review.

From the decision · page 7(Gandy, supra, 1144 Cal.App.5th at 1280 (bold added; italics original).) Here, the Dodgers assert they are exempt according to section 3600.5, subdivision (c).

ADJ19384154 · June 4, 2026

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

The rules the panel named

About this page