ADJ9095473 · January 22, 2025

The WCJ found applicant credible that he accepted the Green Bay Packers' offer while physically in California, conferring California jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305.

From the decision · page 4On March 14, 2024, the WCJ issued her Findings of Fact, determining in relevant part that applicant and the Green Bay Packers formed a contract of hire within California's territorial jurisdiction, thus conferring California subject matter jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to sections 3600.5 and 5305. (Findings of Fact No. 2.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision observed that applicant had testified credibly at trial to that he was physically present in California when he

Applicant testified he was physically present in Brea, California when he accepted the offer of employment from the Green Bay Packers and instructed his agent to communicate acceptance.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This testimony was found credible by the WCJ and was the basis for finding California jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(a).

From the decision · page 8In contrast, applicant testified to his specific recollection of his location when he accepted the offer of employment from the Packers. Applicant directed his contract advisor to communicate his acceptance back to the Green Bay Packers while located "at the intersection of Berry and Imperial, in Brea, California," (Id. at pp. 16:10; 20:18.) When asked why his recollection was so specific, applicant testified, "It was a very monumental time in my life, the Saints contract, it was -- felt a little like I wasn't going to last there, but to have the Packers call, the team that I watched growing up, well, that I was offered a contract at that moment." (Id. at p. 16:14.)

Defendant Great Divide Insurance Company failed to show good cause for denial of due process claim regarding denial of witness testimony at trial.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The WCJ found no denial of due process in the trial ruling, supporting affirmation of Findings of Fact.

From the decision · page 12Finally, defendant contends it was denied due process when the WCJ denied its request for additional testimony from a witness. (Petition, at p. 15:20.) However, the WCJ's Report observes that defendant failed to articulate good cause for the dilatory request:

Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305

California subject matter jurisdiction is conferred if the contract of hire is formed in California under Labor Code section 3600.5(a) and section 5305.

The WCJ found the contract of hire was formed in California based on applicant's credible testimony, thus conferring jurisdiction.

From the decision · page 4On March 14, 2024, the WCJ issued her Findings of Fact, determining in relevant part that applicant and the Green Bay Packers formed a contract of hire within California's territorial jurisdiction, thus conferring California subject matter jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to sections 3600.5 and 5305. (Findings of Fact No. 2.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision observed that applicant had testified credibly at trial to that he was physically present in California when he

Applicant's credible testimony that he was physically present in California when he accepted the offer of employment from the Green Bay Packers

From the decision · page 9The WCJ thus accorded significant evidentiary weight to applicant's testimony regarding his physical location in Brea, California, at the time he accepted the offer of employment from the Green Bay Packers. In addition, the Opinion on Decision reflects the WCJ's credibility determination: "The court assessed the Applicant during trial testimony, both times, and found him to be credible and, therefore, considers his testimony unimpeached and reliable." (Opinion on Decision, at p. 3.) We accord to the WCJ's credibility determinations the great weight to which they are entitled. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Based on the applicant's specific recollection and testimony regarding the location of his acceptance of the offer of employment from the Packers, and in conjunction with her assessment of applicant's credibility, the WCJ concluded that the greater weight of the evidence supported a California hiring. Based on our deference to the WCJ's credibility determinations, and following our independent review of the evidentiary record, we discern no error in the WCJ's reliance on applicant's testimony to establish a California hiring as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. (Lab. Code, § 3600.5(a).)