What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review of merits and record.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 7, 2023 Findings and Order (F&O) regarding personal jurisdiction and contractual choice of law/forum clauses.
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 Board found that the WCJ's credibility findings and contract formation analysis required further review, and that the issues of personal jurisdiction and contractual clauses warranted reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 7, 2023 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that California does not have personal jurisdiction over the Cincinnati Bengals or the Kansas City Chiefs, and that applicant's contracts with both teams contained valid contractual choice of law or choice of forum clauses.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was found not credible by the WCJ regarding contract formation in California.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This credibility finding led to the WCJ's conclusion of insufficient evidence for contract formation in California, impacting personal jurisdiction analysis.
From the decision · page 2The WCJ's Report observes that the applicant was not deemed a credible witness at trial, that applicant became agitated and aggressive when questioned regarding his contracts. (Report, at p. 4.) The lack of credibility, in turn, informed the WCJ's decision that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of contract formation in California. (Id. at p. 5.) The WCJ further observed that the applicant had no work activities including games for either team in California, and that applicant's assertion of injury is linked to a fitness program applicant was allegedly required to follow in the off-season. (Id. at p. 5.)
Applicant had no work activities including games for either team in California.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supported the WCJ's finding against personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
From the decision · page 2The WCJ's Report observes that the applicant was not deemed a credible witness at trial, that applicant became agitated and aggressive when questioned regarding his contracts. (Report, at p. 4.) The lack of credibility, in turn, informed the WCJ's decision that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of contract formation in California. (Id. at p. 5.) The WCJ further observed that the applicant had no work activities including games for either team in California, and that applicant's assertion of injury is linked to a fitness program applicant was allegedly required to follow in the off-season. (Id. at p. 5.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Janzen v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th 109
Personal jurisdiction requires notice and minimum contacts with the forum state, as established in Janzen v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. and related cases.
The Board applied this standard to assess whether California has personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
From the decision · page 2It is axiomatic that before a tribunal may enter an award against a party, it must have personal jurisdiction over that party... Personal jurisdiction requires both notice and that the party have at least "minimal contacts" with the forum state. (Janzen v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th 109 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 9, 13].) A California court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only within the perimeters of the due process clause as delineated by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. (Martin v. Detroit Lions, Inc. (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 472, 475 [108 Cal. Rptr. 23, 1973 Cal.App. LEXIS 991], citing International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310 [66 S.Ct. 154] and Michigan Nat. Bank v.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant was found not credible by the WCJ, which influenced the decision on contract formation and personal jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 2The WCJ's Report observes that the applicant was not deemed a credible witness at trial, that applicant became agitated and aggressive when questioned regarding his contracts. (Report, at p. 4.) The lack of credibility, in turn, informed the WCJ's decision that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of contract formation in California. (Id. at p. 5.) The WCJ further observed that the applicant had no work activities including games for either team in California, and that applicant's assertion of injury is linked to a fitness program applicant was allegedly required to follow in the off-season. (Id. at p. 5.)
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.