Berkley Entertainment

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

• Jurisdiction / venue9

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 8
• Anaheim 2
• Oxnard 1
• San Francisco 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 4 for the applicant
• 4 for the defense
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 11 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ20181505 · 2026-05-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, we are concerned that the WCJ did not clearly make a finding as to whether applicant was hired in California or, perhaps more precisely, where applicant was located at the time the Bears reached out to him to offer him employment. As a result, further study of the record and the caselaw surrounding personal jurisdiction is necessary to determine whether the WCJ's decision can be effectively evaluated in the absence of such a finding, or whether we must return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine that factual question prior to rendering a judgement on whether there is personal jurisdiction over the Bears in California for purposes of this claim.

  The WCJ did not clearly find whether applicant was hired in California or where the Bears reached out to him, which is necessary to evaluate personal jurisdiction; further proceedings are needed to determine this factual question.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9095473 · 2024-05-31 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our preliminary review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration to issue an order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800 that the proceedings and testimony from the February 13, 2024 trial in this matter be transcribed and promptly filed in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS), with simultaneous notice of the filing to all active parties and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Office of the Commissioners. Thereafter, the parties shall have twenty days from receipt of the trial transcript, plus any applicable days for mailing, in which to file supplemental pleadings in EAMS.

  The WCJ denied transcript requests as no material inaccuracies in the summary were shown; the WCAB found transcript warranted due to importance of testimony and prior reliance on partial transcripts, granting reconsideration to order transcript and allow supplemental pleadings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12766196 · 2024-03-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In addition to the WCJ's well-reasoned Report, we observe the following. Defendant St. Louis Rams contend the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3600.5(c) because applicant had less than 20 percent of his duty days with the Rams. (Rams' Petition, dated January 19, 2023, at p. 6:11.) However, the WCJ found subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury pursuant to section 3600.5(a) when the Rams entered an oral contract with applicant in California. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) The WCJ's Report observes:

  The WCJ found and the panel adopted that the applicant entered into oral contracts of hire with the Rams and Seahawks in California, conferring subject matter jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(a).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15429257 · 2023-10-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.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 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.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15657256 · 2023-09-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8WHETHER THERE IS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS CLAIM Labor Code § 5305 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

  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.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10622392 · 2022-12-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order dated August 10, 2018, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's claim was exempt from the California workers' compensation system pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivision (d)(1)(B).2 Applicant contends the WCJ erred in determining that he had spent at least seven seasons playing for teams based outside California.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that applicant's claim is barred because he worked more than seven seasons for out-of-state teams, thus meeting the exemption criteria under section 3600.5(d)(1)(B).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18567457 · 2026-03-26 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on January 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ's analysis that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, and that good cause to bifurcate jurisdiction was not presented.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7586930 · 2021-08-06 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On May 17, 2021, defendant filed a Petition for Removal regarding the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)'s April 20, 2021 Minute Order setting this matter for trial. On July 9, 2021, this matter was taken off calendar. As a result, defendant's Petition for Removal has been rendered moot and will be dismissed.

  The matter was taken off calendar, rendering the Petition for Removal moot.

  Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• BERKLEY ENTERTAINMENT
• Berkley Entertainment
• BERKLEY ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Is this your company and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this claims administrator is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.