What the panel ordered
The WCAB affirmed the February 4, 2019 Findings and Order denying jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5, concluding no contract for hire was made in California either directly or through the applicant's agent.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant challenging the February 4, 2019 Findings and Order denying California jurisdiction over the claim; WCJ recommended denial of the petition; WCAB issued Decision After Reconsideration affirming the WCJ's Findings and Order.
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 the applicant did not meet the burden of proving a contract for hire was made in California, either directly or through his agent, based on the contract execution locations and the agent's lack of authority to bind the applicant without prior written consent.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the February 4, 2019 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional hockey player from 2012 through 2016, claimed to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to multiple body parts, including but not limited to orthopedic, head, neck, spine, hips, upper and lower extremities, neurological, internal, eyes and ears. The WCJ found that applicant had not met the burden of proving a contract for hire was made within California, and as a result, that the court was without jurisdiction over applicant's claim pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5. (F&O, Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant signed the contract with the Philadelphia Flyers in Alberta, Canada, and the contract with the Tulsa Oilers in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established that the contracts were executed outside California, negating California jurisdiction.
The Standard Player-Agent Contract explicitly stated the agent had no authority to bind the applicant without prior written consent.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This contractual limitation was key to the WCJ's and WCAB's conclusion that no binding contract was formed in California through the agent.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3600.5
Labor Code section 3600.5 provides jurisdiction over injuries to employees hired or regularly working in California even if injury occurs outside the state.
The court applied this statute to determine jurisdiction based on contract formation location.
From the decision · page 6In 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
Labor Code section 5305
Labor Code section 5305 relates to jurisdiction and contract formation for workers' compensation claims.
Referenced in dissent supporting California jurisdiction based on agent's authority.
From the decision · page 12I respectfully dissent. I would rescind Findings of Fact Nos. 2 and 3, and substitute findings of fact that applicant met the burden necessary to show his employment contract was accepted in California by his agent, conferring California jurisdiction pursuant to Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's agent lacked authority to bind applicant to contract without prior written consent, supported by contract language and testimony.
Applicant did not play or practice in California and signed contracts outside California.
From the decision · page 2Applicant testified to his history as a professional hockey player from April 2, 2012 through April 20, 2016. (October 17, 2018 Minutes, at 6:2.) Applicant played for the Philadelphia Flyers from April 2, 2012 through April 19, 2015, and for the ECHL dba Tulsa Oilers from October 5, 2015 through April 20, 2016. (Ibid.) Applicant never played or practiced in California for either team. (Id. at 7:12.)
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.