What the panel ordered
WCAB rescinded WCJ's finding of no concurrent jurisdiction and found concurrent jurisdiction under California workers' compensation law; remanded for further proceedings on outstanding issues.
Petition for reconsideration filed by applicant after WCJ decision denying concurrent jurisdiction, granted by Appeals Board for factual and legal review.
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 Board found that the applicant, a ferry captain and seaman under the Jones Act, was injured in territorial waters while working on a vessel tied to a pier in San Francisco Bay, with substantial contacts to California, supporting concurrent jurisdiction under California workers' compensation law despite initial maritime benefits under federal law.
From the decision · page 2Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the WCJ erred in finding that there is no concurrent jurisdiction under California workers' compensation law in this case. The applicant herein, a ferry captain who is a "seaman" under the federal Jones Act, was injured while working on the engine of his ferry, which was tied to a pier in Fisherman's Wharf over the waters of San Francisco Bay. As we explain below, the fact that applicant's employer initially provided maritime benefits under federal law does not deprive the WCAB of concurrent jurisdiction over the ferry captain's subsequently-filed California workers' compensation claim. As our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the WCJ's finding of no concurrent jurisdiction and substitute our finding that the WCAB has concurrent jurisdiction over applicant's workers' compensation claim herein.