ADJ14405690 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant challenging Findings of Fact 1-2; WCJ issued Findings of Fact and Order on July 8, 2024; WCAB panel decision issued October 14, 2024 denying reconsideration.

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.

Other disputed issueApplicant prevailed

Applicant was found to have been employed by these teams because he provided service to them and the presumption of employment was not rebutted by Defendants.

From the decision · page 17Defendants assert Applicant was not employed with/by The Gigantes De Corolona, Leones De Ponce and Congrejeros De Santruce.

Jurisdiction / venueApplicant prevailed

Applicant entered into a contract of hire in California with the Los Angeles Angels during the cumulative trauma period, establishing California jurisdiction over the claim despite Defendant's exemption arguments under Labor Code 3600.5.

The rules the panel named

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

Bowen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 15

Labor Code 3600.5 and 5305 confer California jurisdiction over cumulative trauma claims when a contract of hire is made in California.

The Board applied the holding that a contract of hire in California supports jurisdiction even for out-of-state injuries.

From the decision · page 7The WCAB explained "that in drafting the 2013 amendments to section 3600.5 concerning professional athletes, the legislature was clear: its intent was that the changes made to law by this act shall have no impact or alter in any way the decision of the court in Bowen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 15 [86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 95];" it reasoned its analysis in Hansell affirmed the central holding of Bowen that a contract of hire in this state will support the exercise of California jurisdiction even over a claim based purely on out-of- state injury, and that a player's signing of a contract while in this state constitutes hire in this state for that purpose. (Bowen, Id., 73 Cal.App.4th at 27).

Jones v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1971) 20 Cal. App. 3d 124

Labor Code 3357 presumes employment for persons rendering service unless rebutted by lack of contract of hire.

The Board applied the presumption of employment to find Applicant employed by the Gigantes, Leones, and Congrejeros teams.

From the decision · page 17Labor Code § 3357 reflects any person rendering service for another, other than as an independent contractor, or unless expressly excluded, is presumed to be an employee. The presumption of Lab C § 3357 that a person rendering services for another is presumed to be an employee will be overcome if the essential contract of hire be not present, and the burden of proof is on the one for whom the service was rendered. Jones v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1971), 20 Cal. App. 3d 124, 97 Cal. Rptr. 554, 36 Cal. Comp. Cases 563, 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1156.

ADJ14405690 · October 14, 2024

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

What proof carried it

About this page