What the panel ordered
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant's claim is barred pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5(d)(1)(B).
Petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Order dated August 10, 2018, granted to further study factual and legal issues; decision after reconsideration issued affirming the WCJ's finding that applicant's claim is barred under Labor Code section 3600.5(d)(1)(B).
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 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).
From the decision · page 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 facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant worked more than seven seasons for out-of-state teams, including time with the Bears and T-Bones, which counts towards the seven-season limit.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supports the finding that the applicant's claim is barred under Labor Code section 3600.5(d)(1)(B).
Applicant's time under contract with the Dodgers, a California-based team, while playing for out-of-state affiliates counts as time working for a California-based team.
Favours neutral
This fact clarifies how seasons are counted for the purposes of the statute and supports the calculation of duty days and seasons.
From the decision · page 6The fundamental principle of statutory interpretation is "the ascertainment of legislative intent so that the purpose of the law may be effectuated...." (People ex rel. Younger v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 30, 40.) Turning first to the language of the statute itself, subdivision (d) refers to "work" for California or non-California teams, not to "playing" for those teams. (§ 3600.5(d)(1)(A)&(B).) Given that applicant's contract of employment was with the Dodgers, it is difficult to argue that applicant was no longer "working" for the Dodgers during those periods he was dispatched to out-of-state affiliates, even if he was "playing" for the minor league affiliate in question. Furthermore, the definition of duty day states that services must be performed "under the direction and control of his or her employer pursuant to a player contract." (§ 3600.5(g)(3).) Because applicant's contract was with the Dodgers, the Dodgers were the "employer" for purposes of exercising direction or control, and services were performed "pursuant to a player contract" with the Dodgers, not with those teams. Accordingly, the plain language of the statute appears to favor an interpretation that would include this time as time spent playing for a California-based team.
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(d)(1)(B)
The statute was applied to determine that the applicant's claim is barred because he worked more than seven seasons for out-of-state teams.
From the decision · page 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 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.