ADJ10418232 · April 7, 2022

The Board concluded that subdivisions (c) and (d) of Labor Code section 3600.5 do not apply because the applicant was hired in California multiple times during the injury period, establishing jurisdiction under subdivision (a) and section 5305.

From the decision · page 17We are mindful that discerning legislative intent is fraught with difficulty when the statute does not clearly speak for itself. However, for all the reasons referenced above, we believe the most reasonable interpretation of section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) is that they are intended to apply only to athletes who cannot establish jurisdiction under section 3600.5, subdivision (a) or section 5305. Because it is undisputed that applicant was hired in California multiple times during the cumulative trauma injury period, we may properly exercise jurisdiction over his claim pursuant to those sections, and we will reverse the WCJ's finding to the contrary, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Applicant was hired in California multiple times during the cumulative trauma injury period.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(a) and section 5305, making subdivisions (c) and (d) inapplicable.

From the decision · page 17We are mindful that discerning legislative intent is fraught with difficulty when the statute does not clearly speak for itself. However, for all the reasons referenced above, we believe the most reasonable interpretation of section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) is that they are intended to apply only to athletes who cannot establish jurisdiction under section 3600.5, subdivision (a) or section 5305. Because it is undisputed that applicant was hired in California multiple times during the cumulative trauma injury period, we may properly exercise jurisdiction over his claim pursuant to those sections, and we will reverse the WCJ's finding to the contrary, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Labor Code sections 5300, 5301; King v. Pan American World Airways (1959) 270 F.2d 355

The WCAB may assert subject matter jurisdiction when the injury has a significant connection or nexus to California.

Applied to determine jurisdiction over the claim based on California hire and nexus.

From the decision · page 4In general, the WCAB may assert its subject matter jurisdiction in a given workers' compensation injury claim when the evidence establishes that an employment related injury, which is the subject matter, has a significant connection or nexus to the state of California. (See § 5300, 5301; King, supra, 270 F.2d at 360; Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1128.) Whether there is a significant connection or nexus to the State of California is best described as an issue of due process, though it has also been referred to as a question of subject-matter jurisdiction. (New York Knickerbockers v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Macklin) (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1238; Johnson, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at 1128.)

Labor Code section 3600.5(a)

Section 3600.5(a) provides jurisdiction for injuries outside California if the employee was hired or regularly working in California.

Applied to establish jurisdiction based on California hire.

From the decision · page 5In addition to injuries occurring in California, the WCAB can also assert subject matter jurisdiction over injuries occurring outside this state in certain circumstances. Section 3600.5, subdivision (a) states: "If 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(a).) Similarly, section 5305 states: "The 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." (§ 5305.)4

Labor Code section 5305

Section 5305 provides jurisdiction where the injured employee is a California resident and the contract of hire was made in California.

Applied to establish jurisdiction based on California hire and residency.

From the decision · page 5In addition to injuries occurring in California, the WCAB can also assert subject matter jurisdiction over injuries occurring outside this state in certain circumstances. Section 3600.5, subdivision (a) states: "If 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(a).) Similarly, section 5305 states: "The 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." (§ 5305.)4

Labor Code section 3600.5(c) and (d)

Section 3600.5(c) and (d) limit jurisdiction for professional athletes hired outside California temporarily working in California or with minimal California contacts.

Considered but found inapplicable because applicant was hired in California multiple times.

From the decision · page 17We are mindful that discerning legislative intent is fraught with difficulty when the statute does not clearly speak for itself. However, for all the reasons referenced above, we believe the most reasonable interpretation of section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) is that they are intended to apply only to athletes who cannot establish jurisdiction under section 3600.5, subdivision (a) or section 5305. Because it is undisputed that applicant was hired in California multiple times during the cumulative trauma injury period, we may properly exercise jurisdiction over his claim pursuant to those sections, and we will reverse the WCJ's finding to the contrary, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.