Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
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.)