What the panel ordered
Findings of Fact of February 21, 2019 rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings consistent with opinion.
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings of Fact of February 21, 2019 rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings to determine if applicant was hired in California and to proceed accordingly.
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 WCAB held that if the applicant was hired in California, the forum selection clause in his contract is unenforceable and does not bar WCAB jurisdiction. The WCJ did not make a finding on the hire location, so the case was remanded for that factual determination.
From the decision · page 1Applicant sought reconsideration of the February 21, 2019 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concluded that although applicant had been hired in California, the WCAB nevertheless lacked jurisdiction over his claim due to the presence of a forum selection clause in his contract, requiring him to bring his workers' compensation claim in Wisconsin instead of California. Applicant contests this determination, arguing that the fact of his hire in California renders the forum selection clause unenforceable and makes California an appropriate forum for his claim.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant signed the contract in California and was in California when offered the contract.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supports that the contract of hire was made in California, which confers WCAB jurisdiction despite the forum selection clause.
From the decision · page 2When applicant was offered his 2003 Packers contract, he was in California, having travelled there from Las Vegas with a friend. (Ibid.) He was at the Beverly Hills Marriott Residence Inn when Landphere contacted him and advised him about the contract. (Ibid.) He signed the contract in California. (Ibid.) When applicant was first deposed, he didn't remember where he signed the contract, but since then, he found the contract at his house and remembered some of the details. (Ibid.)
The WCJ did not make a finding that applicant was hired in California.
Favours neutral
Without this finding, the WCAB could not enforce or reject the forum selection clause, necessitating remand for factual determination.
From the decision · page 6That said, we are cognizant that the WCJ did not technically make a finding that applicant was hired in California. Instead, the Findings of Fact are limited to a single finding that the forum selection clause prevents the exercise of jurisdiction. We also observe that the issue of whether applicant was hired in California was the primary issue litigated by the parties, but that the lack of a finding as to that issue significantly complicated the ability of the parties to argue that issue on reconsideration. We are therefore hesitant to simply substitute a new order finding that applicant was hired in California, as we think that issue is best left to the WCJ herself, whose credibility determinations are due great weight due to her ability to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, and who can articulate her reasons more clearly in a new decision. (See Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318§ 319.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code Section 3600.5(a)
Confers compensation entitlement if hired or regularly working in California even if injury occurred outside the state.
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION Labor Code2 Section 3600.5(a) provides that, "[i]f an employee who has been hired or is regularly working in the state receives personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment outside of this state, he or she, or his or her dependents, in the case of his or her death, shall be entitled to compensation according to the law of this state." (§ 3600.5.) Section 5305 further provides:
Labor Code
Labor Code Section 5305
Confers jurisdiction if contract of hire was made in California or employee was resident at time of injury.
From the decision · page 3The Division of Workers' Compensation, including the administrative director, and the appeals board have jurisdiction over all controversies arising out of injuries suffered outside the territorial limits of this state in those cases where the injured employee is a resident of this state at the time of the injury and the contract of hire was made in this state. Any employee described by this section, or his or her dependents, shall be entitled to the compensation or death benefits provided by this division. (§ 5305.)
Keiaho v. Indianapolis Colts (2024)
Forum selection clause cannot bar WCAB jurisdiction if employee was hired in California.
California Supreme Court
Palma (1934) 1 Cal.2d 250
Formation of contract of hire in California confers jurisdiction even if injury occurred outside the state.
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.