What the panel ordered
Findings and Order dated October 11, 2018, affirmed except amended to clarify lack of due process rather than lack of jurisdiction
Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order dated October 11, 2018, granted and decision after reconsideration issued
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 applicant's cumulative trauma injury exposure in California was only about 3% of his total career, insufficient to establish a significant connection to California for jurisdiction under Johnson, and the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process.
From the decision · page 5Here, applicant appears to have played four games in California during the course of his professional career, and also testified to participating in practices during a fifth trip to California, though he did not actually play in that game. Applicant does not appear to contest the WCJ's finding that he played in at least 146 games across his career, each with their own associated practices.3 Therefore, even viewing matters in the light most favorable to applicant, it appears that his total California exposure amounts to at best approximately 3% of his total playing career almost exactly the same percentage as in Johnson, where one game out of 34 also represented roughly 3% of the injury exposure the Johnson Court considered.