What the panel ordered
Defendant's petition for reconsideration denied; applicant's petition for reconsideration granted; decision of January 31, 2025 amended and affirmed in part; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Petitions for reconsideration filed by applicant and defendant; WCJ recommended denying defendant's petition and granting applicant's petition for further record development; WCAB granted applicant's petition, denied defendant's petition, and returned matter to trial level for further proceedings.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 16, 2024.
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 properly relied on the reports of treating physicians as the sole body of medical evidence; the WCAB declined to disturb this reliance.
From the decision · page 6We next address defendant's contention that the reporting of applicant's treating physicians is inadmissible. Defendant contends the reporting of primary treating physician (PTP) Dr. Fonseca does not reflect an actual treatment relationship with applicant, nor can it describe a treatment relationship when the treating physician opines applicant became permanent and stationary more than three years prior to the evaluation. (Defendant's Petition, at p. 3:23; 4:11.) Defendant further contends that none of applicant's evaluations by Drs. Greenzang, Nudleman, and Dimmick were accomplished by an appropriate referral from the PTP, and accordingly, were not an appropriate basis upon which to issue an Award. (Id. at p. 6:23.)
Applicant's hiring in California was sufficient to confer jurisdiction despite defendant's argument about the forum selection clause; the WCAB denied defendant's petition on this issue.
From the decision · page 7Finally, we address defendant's contention that the "WCJ incorrectly refused to enforce the Reds valid choice of law and choice of forum selection clause in their contract pursuant to the holding in the en banc decision of McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23." (Defendant's Petition, at p. 9:4.) Defendant asserts that because the Reds "never employed the Applicant in California and did not enter into a contract of hire with Applicant in California," the forum selection clause in applicant's contract with the Reds must be enforced. (Id. at p. 9:11.)
The WCJ's findings did not specifically address all claimed body parts or the compensability of psychiatric injury; the WCAB granted reconsideration and returned the matter for further development of the medical record.
From the decision · page 5We begin our discussion with the issue of nature and extent of the claimed injury. Applicant avers injury to multiple body parts and systems, including head in the form of headaches, vision, jaw, neck, back, bilateral shoulders, bilateral elbows, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral fingers, bilateral hips, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral feet, bilateral toes, neuro[logical system], psyche, internal system, and in the form of sleep disorder. (Minutes, at p. 2:4.) The WCJ's F&A found injury to each of the claimed body parts. (Finding of Fact No. 1.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant signed multiple contracts in California, establishing sufficient connection for WCAB jurisdiction.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact justified the WCAB's exercise of jurisdiction over the claim despite defendant's forum selection clause argument.
From the decision · page 7Here, applicant was hired in California on multiple occasions. Applicant's unrebutted testimony establishes that he signed his first multi-year contract with the Chicago Cubs in 1998 while physically located at his future father-in-law's home in Menlo Park, California. (Transcript of Proceedings, September 18, 2018, at p. 13:20; 14:4.) Applicant signed a subsequent contract with the Cubs while physically located in California. (Id. at p. 13:31.) Applicant's testimony also establishes that he signed his major league contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers while physically located at Dodger Stadium, in Los Angeles, California. (Id. at p. 16:11.) Applicant's hirings in California are sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim, which is the alleged cumulative injury. (Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Palma) (1934) 1 Cal.2d 250, affd. (1935) 294 U.S. 532 (Palma); Bowen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 15, 27 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 745] ["an employee who is a professional athlete residing in California... who signs a player's contract in California furnished to the athlete here by an out- of-state team, is entitled to benefits under the act for injuries received while playing out of state under the contract"]; Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 221
The medical record was undeveloped regarding the nature and extent of injury, including psychiatric injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded for further development to ensure substantial evidence supports the award.
From the decision · page 5The WCJ's Report observes that any decision, award or order of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of a review of the entire record. (Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310].) Following a review of the entire record, the WCJ recommends that we grant reconsideration and return the matter to the trial level for development of the medical and medical-legal record with respect to the nature and extent of the injury.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Identified psychiatric impairment relevant to permanent disability calculation, which was omitted in the WCJ's award.
Applicant contended psychiatric injury was direct and compensable; WCAB found record undeveloped on this issue and remanded for further development.
From the decision · page 5Applicant contends that notwithstanding the limitations on compensable consequence psychiatric injuries found in section 4660.1, applicant sustained direct psychiatric injury resulting in compensable permanent disability. (Applicant's Petition, at p. 4:4.) Applicant contends it was error not to include the impairment identified in the reporting of Dr. Greenzang in the calculation of final permanent disability.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4060(b)
Reports of treating physicians shall be admissible.
WCJ properly relied on treating physicians' reports as sole medical evidence.
From the decision · page 7Cal.2d 476 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221].) Moreover, section 4060(b) provides that "reports of treating physicians shall be admissible." (Lab. Code, § 4060(b).) Accordingly, we decline to disturb the WCJ's reliance on the reporting of applicant's treating physicians, the sole body of medical reporting admitted in evidence.
Labor Code sections 5701, 5906; McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Board en banc)
The WCAB has discretion to develop the record when medical evidence is not substantial or to provide due process.
WCAB granted reconsideration to develop medical record on nature and extent of injury.
From the decision · page 5The WCJ's Report observes that any decision, award or order of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of a review of the entire record. (Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310].) Following a review of the entire record, the WCJ recommends that we grant reconsideration and return the matter to the trial level for development of the medical and medical-legal record with respect to the nature and extent of the injury.
Labor Code sections 5000, 5305, 3600.5(a); McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23
Applicant's hiring in California confers jurisdiction over workers' compensation claim despite forum selection clause.
WCAB denied defendant's petition on jurisdiction issue based on applicant's California hiring.
From the decision · page 7Finally, we address defendant's contention that the "WCJ incorrectly refused to enforce the Reds valid choice of law and choice of forum selection clause in their contract pursuant to the holding in the en banc decision of McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23." (Defendant's Petition, at p. 9:4.) Defendant asserts that because the Reds "never employed the Applicant in California and did not enter into a contract of hire with Applicant in California," the forum selection clause in applicant's contract with the Reds must be enforced. (Id. at p. 9:11.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's unrebutted testimony that he signed contracts in California, establishing jurisdictional basis.
From the decision · page 7Here, applicant was hired in California on multiple occasions. Applicant's unrebutted testimony establishes that he signed his first multi-year contract with the Chicago Cubs in 1998 while physically located at his future father-in-law's home in Menlo Park, California. (Transcript of Proceedings, September 18, 2018, at p. 13:20; 14:4.) Applicant signed a subsequent contract with the Cubs while physically located in California. (Id. at p. 13:31.) Applicant's testimony also establishes that he signed his major league contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers while physically located at Dodger Stadium, in Los Angeles, California. (Id. at p. 16:11.) Applicant's hirings in California are sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim, which is the alleged cumulative injury. (Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Palma) (1934) 1 Cal.2d 250, affd. (1935) 294 U.S. 532 (Palma); Bowen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 15, 27 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 745] ["an employee who is a professional athlete residing in California... who signs a player's contract in California furnished to the athlete here by an out- of-state team, is entitled to benefits under the act for injuries received while playing out of state under the contract"]; Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 221
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.