ADJ15824668 · November 7, 2024

The record is unclear where the contract was formed, which is critical to determining jurisdiction. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to clarify this.

From the decision · page 9Here, the record is lacking as to where to subject contract was formed. We cannot reach an analysis of section 3600.5(c) and (d) until that question is answered. For that reason, we rescind the May 22, 2024 Findings of Fact and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The record is unclear where the subject contract between the parties was formed.

Favours neutral

This fact is critical to determining whether California has subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

From the decision · page 9Here, the record is lacking as to where to subject contract was formed. We cannot reach an analysis of section 3600.5(c) and (d) until that question is answered. For that reason, we rescind the May 22, 2024 Findings of Fact and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

California Labor Code

California Labor Code Section 3600.5

Provides basis for jurisdiction if employee hired or regularly working in California.

From the decision · page 3If 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 state, he or she, or his or her dependents, in the case of his or her death, shall be entitled to compensation according to the law of this state. (§ 3600.5(a).)

California Labor Code

California Labor Code Section 5305

Jurisdiction over injuries outside California if employee is resident and contract of hire made in California.

From the decision · page 3The Division of Workers' Compensation, including the administrative director, and the appeals board have jurisdiction over all controversies arising out of injuries suffered outside the territorial limits of this state in those cases where the injured employee is a resident of this state at the time of the injury and the contract of hire was made in this state. Any employee described by this section,

Palma v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1 Cal.2d 250)

Palma v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1 Cal.2d 250)

Establishes that hiring in California is sufficient for jurisdiction over injuries outside the state.

From the decision · page 4If this were not so there could be no compensation for an injury arising out of and in course of the employment but occurring before the jurisdiction in which the services were to be performed had been entered, or where that jurisdiction had no compensation statute. This would seriously interfere with the policy of the act, which is to charge to the industry those losses which it should rightfully bear, and to provide for the employee injured in the advancement of the interests of that industry, a certain and prompt recovery commensurate with his loss and, in so doing, lessen the burden of society to care for those whom industry has deprived, either temporarily or permanently, of the ability to care for themselves. Having a social interest in the existence within its borders of the employer-employee relationship, the state may, under its police power, impose reasonable regulations upon its creation in the state. That the imposition of such conditions is in line with the present-day policy in compensation legislation cannot be doubted.

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

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

Confirms jurisdiction based on hire in California; exemptions in Labor Code 3600.5(c) and (d) do not affect this.

From the decision · page 9The provisions of section 3600.5(c) and (d), however, do not apply if the athlete was hired in California. In drafting the exemption in section 3600.5(c) and (d), the Legislature included a note of intent, stating that the addition of subdivisions (c) and (d) to section 3600.5 should "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, 27 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 745]]." (Stats. 2013 ch. 653 (AB 1309) § 3.). Because Bowen affirmed the exercise of jurisdiction based upon a hire in California, we have held in the past that subdivisions (c) and (d) of section 3600.5 apply only where an applicant cannot establish hire in California on at least one contract during the relevant cumulative trauma injury period. (See Hansell v. Arizona Diamondbacks (2022) 87 Cal. Comp. Cases 602, 611§ 618.)