ADJ13153374 · July 21, 2026

The WCAB found that the applicant was hired in California for purposes of California workers’ compensation law based on binding precedent in Gandy, which holds that hire by a California-based team equates to hire in California, despite the contract being signed outside California. This established subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.

From the decision · page 10We are therefore authorized to exercise jurisdiction over his claims by sections 3600.5, subdivision (a) and/or 5305. 3 Accordingly, we will rescind the Findings of Fact and substitute a new order finding that applicant was hired in California for purposes of California workers’ compensation law and is eligible to bring both his specific and cumulative injury claims in this forum. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that the May 12, 2021 Joint Findings of Fact is RESCINDED, and the following order SUBSTITUTED therefore:

Applicant was hired by the San Diego Padres, a California-based team, despite signing the contract in the Dominican Republic.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact established a sufficient connection to California under the Gandy precedent, leading to the finding of hire in California for workers’ compensation purposes.

From the decision · page 10rationale for Gandy’s holding that we had misinterpreted section 3600.5. If work for (and therefore hire by) a California-based team as described in subdivision (d) is not equivalent to hire in California as described in subdivisions (a) and (c), the distinction our prior jurisprudence drew between those two terms would rest upon the plain language of the statute, and the Gandy decision would lack any articulated basis for either rejecting our interpretation or for ignoring that plain language itself. Defendant’s choice not to file supplemental briefing only reinforces the point that there is no basis to distinguish Gandy’s directive. As such, Gandy dictates that because applicant was hired by the Padres – clearly a California-based team – he was hired in California for purposes of California workers’ compensation law, notwithstanding the fact he was located in the Dominican Republic at the time he accepted the offer of employment.

Cal. Lab. Code §§ 3600.5, 5305

Section 3600.5(a) and 5305 of the California Labor Code regarding jurisdiction over injuries and contracts of hire in California

Applied to determine that hire by a California-based team constitutes hire in California for workers’ compensation jurisdiction purposes.

From the decision · page 10We are therefore authorized to exercise jurisdiction over his claims by sections 3600.5, subdivision (a) and/or 5305. 3 Accordingly, we will rescind the Findings of Fact and substitute a new order finding that applicant was hired in California for purposes of California workers’ compensation law and is eligible to bring both his specific and cumulative injury claims in this forum. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that the May 12, 2021 Joint Findings of Fact is RESCINDED, and the following order SUBSTITUTED therefore:

Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4

California Constitution Article XIV, Section 4 granting the Legislature plenary power over workers’ compensation

Supports the statutory framework for workers’ compensation jurisdiction and the WCAB’s authority.

From the decision · page 5Article XVI, section 4, of the California Constitution provides that the Legislature “is … expressly vested with plenary power, unlimited by any provision of this Constitution, to create, and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation, by appropriate legislation.” (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) Thus, in the absence of a statute affirmatively conferring subject matter jurisdiction over a claim to the WCAB, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over the claim. (Tripplett v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 556, 562.) The requirement to demonstrate statutory subject matter jurisdiction is in addition to the significant connection or nexus to the state required by due process to support the exercise of jurisdiction under the Johnson line of cases referenced above.