ADJ21106251 · August 17, 2026

The WCJ found credible applicant's testimony that he accepted employment offers while physically present in California, establishing California hiring and subject matter jurisdiction. The WCAB found no substantial evidence to overturn this credibility finding and affirmed jurisdiction.

From the decision · page 2Applicant claimed injury to his head, neck, back, spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hips, bilateral elbows, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, fingers, bilateral legs, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral feet, toes, internal, ENT/TMJ, neuro, psych, hearing, vision, sleep, and chronic pain while employed as a professional athlete by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers from April 29, 2007 to March 11, 2014, and the Washington Commanders, formerly known as the Washington Redskins, from March 12, 2014 to July 22, 2016. Defendant denies injury arising out of and in the course of employment and asserts the WCAB lacks subject matter jurisdiction over applicant’s claim. On February 25, 2026, the parties proceeded to trial on the sole issue of “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to Labor Code Sections 3600.5 and 5305.” (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (Minutes), dated February 25, 2026, at p. 2:16.) The WCJ heard testimony from applicant, and ordered the matter submitted for decision as of March 17, 2026. On May 14, 2026, the WCJ issued her Finding of Fact, determining that “[p]ursuant to Labor Code sections 5305 and 3600.5(a), this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Applicant’s claim and there is no exemption under 3600.5 (c) and (d).” (Finding of Fact No.

Applicant accepted offers of employment from Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Washington Commanders while physically present in California.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established a California hiring, which under Labor Code sections 3600.5 and 5305 confers subject matter jurisdiction to the WCAB.

From the decision · page 6Having heard and weighed the evidence, including applicant’s testimony under direct and cross- examination, the WCJ accepted applicant’s trial testimony as credible and determined that “similar to his acceptance of Tampa Bay’s offer following the draft, applicant agreed to Washington’s offer to join their organization while located in California.” (Opinion on Decision, at p. 7.) The WCJ’s Report confirms that she found applicant’s testimony to be fully credible and based thereon determined that applicant’s hiring in California was an appropriate basis for subject matter jurisdiction. (Report, at p. 3.) When a petition for reconsideration is filed, the Appeals Board has the power to reweigh the evidence, make an independent examination of the record, and reach a different conclusion than was reached by the WCJ. (Labor Code §§ 5907, 5315; Buescher v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 520 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 537] (Buescher); Allied Comp. Ins. v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Lintz) (1961) 57 Cal.2d 115 [26 Cal.Comp.Cases 241]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; Mendoza v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 820 [41 Cal.Comp.Cases 71, 73]; Minne West

Labor Code sections 3600.5 and 5305

Labor Code sections 3600.5 and 5305 confer subject matter jurisdiction when an employee is hired in California even if injury occurs outside the state.

The WCJ applied these statutes to find jurisdiction based on the location of contract formation and acceptance of employment offers in California.

From the decision · page 2Applicant claimed injury to his head, neck, back, spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hips, bilateral elbows, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, fingers, bilateral legs, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral feet, toes, internal, ENT/TMJ, neuro, psych, hearing, vision, sleep, and chronic pain while employed as a professional athlete by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers from April 29, 2007 to March 11, 2014, and the Washington Commanders, formerly known as the Washington Redskins, from March 12, 2014 to July 22, 2016. Defendant denies injury arising out of and in the course of employment and asserts the WCAB lacks subject matter jurisdiction over applicant’s claim. On February 25, 2026, the parties proceeded to trial on the sole issue of “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to Labor Code Sections 3600.5 and 5305.” (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (Minutes), dated February 25, 2026, at p. 2:16.) The WCJ heard testimony from applicant, and ordered the matter submitted for decision as of March 17, 2026. On May 14, 2026, the WCJ issued her Finding of Fact, determining that “[p]ursuant to Labor Code sections 5305 and 3600.5(a), this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Applicant’s claim and there is no exemption under 3600.5 (c) and (d).” (Finding of Fact No.

Applicant's credible trial testimony regarding his physical presence in California when accepting employment offers from Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Washington Commanders.

From the decision · page 6Having heard and weighed the evidence, including applicant’s testimony under direct and cross- examination, the WCJ accepted applicant’s trial testimony as credible and determined that “similar to his acceptance of Tampa Bay’s offer following the draft, applicant agreed to Washington’s offer to join their organization while located in California.” (Opinion on Decision, at p. 7.) The WCJ’s Report confirms that she found applicant’s testimony to be fully credible and based thereon determined that applicant’s hiring in California was an appropriate basis for subject matter jurisdiction. (Report, at p. 3.) When a petition for reconsideration is filed, the Appeals Board has the power to reweigh the evidence, make an independent examination of the record, and reach a different conclusion than was reached by the WCJ. (Labor Code §§ 5907, 5315; Buescher v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 520 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 537] (Buescher); Allied Comp. Ins. v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Lintz) (1961) 57 Cal.2d 115 [26 Cal.Comp.Cases 241]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; Mendoza v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 820 [41 Cal.Comp.Cases 71, 73]; Minne West