What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is granted; final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits and the entire record.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on January 19, 2024, which found the claim barred by Labor Code section 3600.5(d) and lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration; the Appeals Board grants reconsideration and defers final decision pending further review.
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 Appeals Board found that the WCJ's initial denial based on section 3600.5(d) was premature and granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the entire record, deferring final decision.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on January 19, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed from June 1, 1987, through October 1, 2002, as a professional baseball player, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, neck, legs, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, back, knees, ankles, feet, toes, and injury in the form of sleep and nervous system while employed by the Los Angeles Dodgers from June 3, 1987, to October 15, 1993; the Seattle Mariners from February 18, 1994 to May 13, 1995; the Montreal Expos from May 17, 1995 to October 15, 1996; the Philadelphia Phillies from November 21, 1996 to September 30, 1998; the Pittsburgh Pirates from February 16, 1999 to April 5, 2000; and the Mexican League from 2000 to 2002. The WCJ found that applicant's claim is barred by section 3600.5, subdivision (d), and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant worked two or more seasons for a California-based team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, from June 3, 1987, through October 15, 1993.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact is relevant to the jurisdictional analysis under Labor Code section 3600.5(d)(1)(A) and supports reconsideration of the initial denial of jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 3[A]pplicant meets the requirements of subdivision 3600.5(d)(1)(A), in that he worked two or more seasons for a California-based team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, from June 3, 1987, through October 15, 1993. (MOH 2/27/23, page 2, lines 14 to 17). Applicant does not meet the requirements of subdivision 3600.5(d)(1)(B). Applicant played in 8 seasons, from February 1994 through 2002 with other than a California-based teams (2/27/23, page 2, lines 16 to 19). Under subdivision 3600.5(d)(2), applicant and his employers would be exempt from California subject matter jurisdiction.
Applicant played eight seasons with teams other than California-based teams from February 1994 through 2002.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact is relevant to the jurisdictional exemption analysis under Labor Code section 3600.5(d)(1)(B) and is part of the reconsideration review.
From the decision · page 3[A]pplicant meets the requirements of subdivision 3600.5(d)(1)(A), in that he worked two or more seasons for a California-based team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, from June 3, 1987, through October 15, 1993. (MOH 2/27/23, page 2, lines 14 to 17). Applicant does not meet the requirements of subdivision 3600.5(d)(1)(B). Applicant played in 8 seasons, from February 1994 through 2002 with other than a California-based teams (2/27/23, page 2, lines 16 to 19). Under subdivision 3600.5(d)(2), applicant and his employers would be exempt from California subject matter jurisdiction.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 3600.5
Governs subject matter jurisdiction for professional athletes' workers' compensation claims.
From the decision · page 3Labor Code section 3600.5 provides, in relevant part:
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5901
Governs accrual of cause of action and reconsideration process.
From the decision · page 7Labor Code section 5901 states in relevant part that: No cause of action arising out of any final order, decision or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers' compensation judge shall accrue in any court to any person until and unless the appeals board on its own motion sets aside the final order, decision, or award and removes the proceeding to itself or if the person files a petition for reconsideration, and the reconsideration is granted or denied....
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.