ADJ8423470 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Third Amended Findings and Award issued on October 22, 2020 is affirmed by WCAB panel after reconsideration.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by New Orleans Saints seeking review of the October 22, 2020 Third Amended Findings and Award; WCJ had found cumulative injury and California jurisdiction; WCAB panel issued Decision After Reconsideration affirming WCJ's findings.

Read the official decision →

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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedhead · neck · shoulders · elbows · wrists · fingers · back · knees · ankles · blood pressure · sleep · psyche · headaches · post-traumatic head syndrome · hands · hips

The WCAB found that the applicant sustained a single cumulative injury during his professional football career and that his hiring in California by the Minnesota Vikings was sufficient to confer California subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim, notwithstanding forum selection clauses with the New Orleans Saints. The medical evidence supported only a single cumulative injury, and the Saints waived the issue of multiple injuries by failing to timely raise it.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant sustained a single cumulative injury during his professional football career.

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code sections 5903, 5952; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627

An award, order or decision by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record.

The WCAB reviewed the entire record and found substantial evidence supporting the single cumulative injury finding.

From the decision · page 11An award, order or decision by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. (Lab. Code § 5903, 5952; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317-319 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635-637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must be based on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning to support the expert conclusions reached. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Bd. en banc).)

E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Bd. en banc)

A medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, based on an adequate examination and history, and set forth reasoning to support conclusions.

The medical opinions of Drs. Kanter and Einbund met these criteria and were relied upon by the WCAB.

From the decision · page 11An award, order or decision by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. (Lab. Code § 5903, 5952; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317-319 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635-637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must be based on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning to support the expert conclusions reached. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Bd. en banc).)

ADJ8423470 · June 5, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page