ADJ9477566 · May 28, 2026

The Board concluded that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply, but the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, which is necessary to apply those subdivisions.

From the decision · page 2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the supplemental briefing, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, because we conclude that (1) section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply to the claim, but that (2) the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, a necessary factual predicate to application of those subdivisions.

Applicant's employment with the Mayaguez team in a winter league in Puerto Rico was not at the minor or major league level and thus not part of his professional career under section 3600.5(g)(1).

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact meant that the applicant played less than seven seasons with non-California-based teams, exempting him from the jurisdictional bar of section 3600.5(d)(1).

From the decision · page 12Applicant's undisputed trial testimony established that he played for the Mayaguez team in a winter league in Puerto Rico that was neither minor nor major league baseball. Applicant testified that the Mayaguez league was a "winter league," where players attend to get in shape for spring training in the major leagues. (Id. at p. 6:18.) The winter league season is timed to occur in the off season for major league play and is split between the winter of one year and the spring of the next. Applicant would play less than 10 games during the winter league season. (Id. at p. 6:23.) Applicant testified that "Mayaguez is not a professional organization... it is winter ball." (Id. at p. 7:23.) In addition, the documentary evidence submitted in the record distinguishes between applicant's time spent playing in the major leagues, the minor leagues, and "foreign" leagues. (Ex. Z, Baseball Reference player page dated August 20, 2019.) The

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the Tigres team qualifies as a professional athlete employer under section 3600.5(g)(1).

Favours neutral

Without this determination, the Board cannot apply subdivision (d) to exempt the claim, necessitating remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 13Here, we find a lack of substantial evidence in the record to establish that the Tigres, the

California Labor Code

Section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) of the California Labor Code

The Board applied these subdivisions to determine the applicability of jurisdictional exemptions for professional athletes.

From the decision · page 7cumulative trauma injuries. Section 3600.5(d) provides as follows:

Gandy

Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268

The Court of Appeal's interpretation of section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) was applied as binding precedent.

From the decision · page 9However, in Gandy the Court of Appeal disagreed with our interpretation of section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), instead holding that both subdivisions apply to all claims filed by professional athletes after the effective date, even those where the professional athlete was hired in California during the cumulative trauma injury period by a prior employer. (Gandy, supra, 114 Cal.App.5th at p. 1278.) Here, applicant did not file supplemental briefing addressing the holding of Gandy. Gandy is binding appellate law to which we must defer to in the absence of a split of authority, and so we will apply Gandy's holding to this case.