What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration deniedp. 12
Petition for Reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration issued on July 21, 2026
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 WCAB found that the exercise of jurisdiction was proper based on the binding appellate precedent in Atlanta Falcons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) which held that hire by a California-based team constitutes hire in California, conferring jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5 and 5305.
From the decision · page 1The San Diego Padres (“the Padres”) seek reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration issued on July 21, 2026 by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. 1 In our Decision, we found that the exercise of WCAB jurisdiction over applicant’s claim was proper in light of the recent Court of Appeal decision Atlanta Falcons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] (“Gandy”) because applicant was hired in California under the standard articulated by that case. Gandy opined that hire by a California-based team would constitute hire in California even if the offer of employment was accepted elsewhere, because “the California-based team’s location in California would supply the necessary connection to California to deem the contract a California contract,” thereby conferring subject-matter jurisdiction under Labor Code 2 section 3600.5, subdivision (a) and/or section 5305. (Id. at p. 1280.) Because Gandy was issued after we granted reconsideration in this matter, we provided the parties with an opportunity to file supplemental briefing prior to issuing our Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant filed such briefing, but we did not receive any supplemental briefing from the Padres. In this Petition for Reconsideration, the Padres contend that they attempted to file
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was hired by a California-based team, the San Diego Padres.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact was determinative because the WCAB relied on binding precedent that equates hire by a California-based team with hire in California for jurisdictional purposes.
From the decision · page 1The San Diego Padres (“the Padres”) seek reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration issued on July 21, 2026 by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. 1 In our Decision, we found that the exercise of WCAB jurisdiction over applicant’s claim was proper in light of the recent Court of Appeal decision Atlanta Falcons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] (“Gandy”) because applicant was hired in California under the standard articulated by that case. Gandy opined that hire by a California-based team would constitute hire in California even if the offer of employment was accepted elsewhere, because “the California-based team’s location in California would supply the necessary connection to California to deem the contract a California contract,” thereby conferring subject-matter jurisdiction under Labor Code 2 section 3600.5, subdivision (a) and/or section 5305. (Id. at p. 1280.) Because Gandy was issued after we granted reconsideration in this matter, we provided the parties with an opportunity to file supplemental briefing prior to issuing our Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant filed such briefing, but we did not receive any supplemental briefing from the Padres. In this Petition for Reconsideration, the Padres contend that they attempted to file
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Atlanta Falcons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268
Binding appellate precedent that hire by a California-based team constitutes hire in California for purposes of workers’ compensation jurisdiction.
The WCAB applied this precedent to find jurisdiction proper over the applicant’s claim despite the applicant not being present in California when accepting the offer.
From the decision · page 1The San Diego Padres (“the Padres”) seek reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration issued on July 21, 2026 by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. 1 In our Decision, we found that the exercise of WCAB jurisdiction over applicant’s claim was proper in light of the recent Court of Appeal decision Atlanta Falcons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] (“Gandy”) because applicant was hired in California under the standard articulated by that case. Gandy opined that hire by a California-based team would constitute hire in California even if the offer of employment was accepted elsewhere, because “the California-based team’s location in California would supply the necessary connection to California to deem the contract a California contract,” thereby conferring subject-matter jurisdiction under Labor Code 2 section 3600.5, subdivision (a) and/or section 5305. (Id. at p. 1280.) Because Gandy was issued after we granted reconsideration in this matter, we provided the parties with an opportunity to file supplemental briefing prior to issuing our Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant filed such briefing, but we did not receive any supplemental briefing from the Padres. In this Petition for Reconsideration, the Padres contend that they attempted to file
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.