What the panel ordered
Reconsideration granted; December 13, 2023 F&O rescinded; new findings that Windy City Thunderbolts waived defense of lack of personal jurisdiction; further record development required for personal jurisdiction over Kansas City Royals; applicant's election under Labor Code section 5500.5 affirmed as inappropriate.
Petition for reconsideration of the December 13, 2023 Findings and Order (F&O) by defendant Kansas City Royals, challenging personal jurisdiction determinations and due process claims.
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's finding that the applicant's election under section 5500.5 against Windy City Thunderbolts was inappropriate was not challenged and thus affirmed.
From the decision · page 9FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The "election" pursuant to Labor Codes section 5500.5 against Windy City Thunderbolts
The WCJ found possible personal jurisdiction over Kansas City Royals but required further evidence, specifically applicant's testimony, to determine jurisdiction. The WCAB affirmed this as an interlocutory order subject to removal standard and denied removal.
From the decision · page 8The question is whether there is specific personal jurisdiction, which depends on the relationship between the Royals activity in the state and applicant's claimed injury. However, there is as yet no "decision" relative to personal jurisdiction over the Royals, only an observation that the evidence available so far shows possible sufficient contacts with California, but that more evidence is needed, specifically testimony from the person most desired by the Royals as having the necessary information to support its defense.
The Windy City Thunderbolts made a general appearance by filing a Notice of Representation without special appearance and appearing at MSC without asserting jurisdictional defense, thus waiving the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 6On August 3, 2023, counsel for the Thunderbolts filed a Notice of Representation. The Notice makes no mention of a special appearance or of the issue of personal jurisdiction.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Windy City Thunderbolts filed Notice of Representation without special appearance and appeared at MSC without asserting jurisdictional defense.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This conduct constituted a general appearance, waiving the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 6On August 3, 2023, counsel for the Thunderbolts filed a Notice of Representation. The Notice makes no mention of a special appearance or of the issue of personal jurisdiction.
WCJ found possible personal jurisdiction over Kansas City Royals but required further record development, specifically applicant's testimony.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This finding led to denial of removal and remand for further evidence development.
From the decision · page 8The question is whether there is specific personal jurisdiction, which depends on the relationship between the Royals activity in the state and applicant's claimed injury. However, there is as yet no "decision" relative to personal jurisdiction over the Royals, only an observation that the evidence available so far shows possible sufficient contacts with California, but that more evidence is needed, specifically testimony from the person most desired by the Royals as having the necessary information to support its defense.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310
Due process requires minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.
Applied to determine personal jurisdiction over Kansas City Royals.
From the decision · page 5A 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, 326 U.S. 310 [90 L.Ed. 95, 66 S.Ct. 154, 161 A.L.R. 1057] and Michigan Nat. Bank v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [99 Cal.Rptr. 823]; Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) Due process requires that a defendant have certain minimum contacts with a state so that the maintenance of an action in the state does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23, 26 [2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 2]; Buckner v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 619, 623) [38 Cal. Rptr. 332, 1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1319].)
Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 337
A party waives objection to personal jurisdiction by making a general appearance.
Applied to find Windy City Thunderbolts waived personal jurisdiction defense by general appearance.
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.