ADJ14405690 · October 14, 2024

Applicant was found to have been employed by these teams because he provided service to them and the presumption of employment was not rebutted by Defendants.

From the decision · page 17Defendants assert Applicant was not employed with/by The Gigantes De Corolona, Leones De Ponce and Congrejeros De Santruce.

Applicant entered into a contract of hire in California with the Los Angeles Angels during the cumulative trauma period, establishing California jurisdiction over the claim despite Defendant's exemption arguments under Labor Code 3600.5.

From the decision · page 5II FACTS Applicant alleged pre-trial that he sustained injury arising out of and during the course of employment while employed as a professional baseball player by the Arizona Diamondbacks, Atlanta Braves, Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Angels, Newark Bears, and Rockland Boulders.1 Employment with Gigantes de Carlona, Leones de Ponce and Congrejeros de Santruce was disputed, as was employment at various locations in California.2 The parties proceeded to trial over three (3) separate days on the issues of subject matter jurisdiction, exemption pursuant to Labor Code § 3600.5, whether the Arizona Diamondbacks, Los Angeles Dodgers and Los Angeles Angels received due process and whether there is employment with Gigantes de Carlona, Leones de Ponce and Congrejeros de Santruce. The undersigned issued Finding of Fact an Order(s) on July 8, 2024.3 Defendant filed timely Petition for Reconsideration appearing to challenge Findings of Fact 1-2: 1. There is subject matter jurisdiction over Applicant's cumulative trauma claim and those baseball teams and/or clubs within the cumulative trauma period. 2. Defendants have not proved exemption pursuant to Labor Code § 3600.5.4 The undersigned recommends against the granting of reconsideration for the reasons below.

Applicant entered into a contract of hire with the Los Angeles Angels in California during the cumulative trauma period.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established California jurisdiction over the cumulative trauma claim despite Defendant's exemption arguments.

Applicant provided unrebutted service to the Gigantes De Corolona, Leones De Ponce and Congrejeros De Santruce teams.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported a finding of employment with these teams under Labor Code 3357.

From the decision · page 18Exhibit A reflects Applicant "played for" The Gigantes De Corolona, Leones De Ponce and Congrejeros De Santruce which deny having employed him. Service was rendered for The Gigantes De Corolona, Leones De Ponce and Congrejeros De Santruce.

Bowen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 15

Labor Code 3600.5 and 5305 confer California jurisdiction over cumulative trauma claims when a contract of hire is made in California.

The Board applied the holding that a contract of hire in California supports jurisdiction even for out-of-state injuries.

From the decision · page 7The WCAB explained "that in drafting the 2013 amendments to section 3600.5 concerning professional athletes, the legislature was clear: its intent was that the changes made to law by this act shall have no impact or alter in any way the decision of the court in Bowen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 15 [86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 95];" it reasoned its analysis in Hansell affirmed the central holding of Bowen that a contract of hire in this state will support the exercise of California jurisdiction even over a claim based purely on out-of- state injury, and that a player's signing of a contract while in this state constitutes hire in this state for that purpose. (Bowen, Id., 73 Cal.App.4th at 27).

Jones v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1971) 20 Cal. App. 3d 124

Labor Code 3357 presumes employment for persons rendering service unless rebutted by lack of contract of hire.

The Board applied the presumption of employment to find Applicant employed by the Gigantes, Leones, and Congrejeros teams.

From the decision · page 17Labor Code § 3357 reflects any person rendering service for another, other than as an independent contractor, or unless expressly excluded, is presumed to be an employee. The presumption of Lab C § 3357 that a person rendering services for another is presumed to be an employee will be overcome if the essential contract of hire be not present, and the burden of proof is on the one for whom the service was rendered. Jones v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1971), 20 Cal. App. 3d 124, 97 Cal. Rptr. 554, 36 Cal. Comp. Cases 563, 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1156.

Applicant's credible testimony of signing a contract of hire in California with the Los Angeles Angels during the cumulative trauma period.

Witness Hostetter's credible testimony that he was not in California at the time of contract signing, but less weight given compared to Applicant's testimony.