ADJ15657256 · September 15, 2023

The WCJ found the applicant credible and that the contract of hire was made in California, supporting reasonable exercise of jurisdiction under Labor Code 5305. The defendants' federal preemption argument was not raised timely and is rejected.

From the decision · page 8WHETHER THERE IS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS CLAIM Labor Code § 5305 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

Applicant was a resident of California at the time of the telephone call forming the contract of hire.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supports California's exercise of jurisdiction under Labor Code 5305.

From the decision · page 9Here, pursuant to the unrebutted testimony of the Applicant and evidentiary evidence, the applicant was a resident of California at time of telephone call with Coach McCarthy on Draft Day.

The contract of hire was formed orally during a telephone call in California, with offer, acceptance, and consideration occurring there.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Physical location of acceptance in California establishes contract formation there for workers' compensation jurisdiction purposes.

From the decision · page 9In general, in order for a contract to be formed there must be an offer, acceptance and consideration, here, the offer was made during the telephone call between the applicant and Coach McCarthy. The applicant accepted the offer and he believed he knew how much he would be paid, which is the consideration of the oral contract. The offer, acceptance and the consideration was confirmed via the fax sent to the applicant's agent (Exhibit 4). A contract of hire, in the workers' compensation context departs from the common law of contracts. In workers' comp, a contract is formed where the acceptance of the offer physically tasks place. The physical location of the person accepting the employer's offer is crucial to the determination of whether the contract of hire was formed in this state. An employment contract is deemed to have been made in California

Defendants failed to timely raise federal preemption issue at trial, thus waiving the argument.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Failure to timely raise federal preemption supports rejection of defendants' jurisdictional challenge.

From the decision · page 4Petitioner contends that the Workers Compensation Appeals Board is preempted by federal law from determining when and how a contract of hire is formed with a player in the National Football league. The sole issue for Trial was there is subject matter jurisdiction over this claim. At no time during the trial did Petitioner raise the issue of federal law preemption. Failure to raise an issue at trial with specificity poses a serious question of due process on the party that was not put on notice. Petitioner raised the issue of federal preemption for the first time in its Trial Brief. Respondent was therefore prejudiced because of the lack of opportunity to raise additional issues or present additional evidence on the issue. As such, because Petitioner failed to raise the issue of federal preemption at the time of trial, it should be considered waived.

Labor Code 5305

Determination of subject matter jurisdiction over injuries outside California when employee is a resident and contract of hire was made in California.

From the decision · page 8WHETHER THERE IS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS CLAIM Labor Code § 5305 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

Applicant's credible testimony regarding contract formation and residence in California

From the decision · page 8The Court assessed the applicant during trial testimony and found him to be credible and therefore, considers his testimony unimpeached and reliable.