Pro Athlete Law Group

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 36
• Oakland 2
• Oxnard 1
• San Francisco 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 16 for the applicant
• 10 for the defense
• 9 returned for more record

Counted over 33 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ8015380 · 2026-06-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.18For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the July 2, 2019 Findings and Order is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board deferred the rollback issue pending resolution of the section 3600.5(b) application at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ13797705 · 2026-06-09 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the May 26, 2022 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("WCAB") cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim because he was not hired in California, did not regularly work here, and because California has no legitimate interest in his cumulative injury claim. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because he was in fact hired in California and/or regularly employed here, thereby establishing subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivisions (a). 2 We received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration ("Report"), recommending that the Petition be denied. Subsequent to the grant of reconsideration, the Court of Appeal issued Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] ("Gandy"), a decision interpreting section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Specifically, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:

  The WCJ found no jurisdiction because applicant was not hired or regularly employed in California, but reconsideration was granted to consider the impact of the Court of Appeal decision Gandy (2025) which interprets 'hire' under section 3600.5 and favors a liberal construction to find California jurisdiction when a California-based team is involved.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15615310 · 2026-06-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.15Dr. Mack's apportionment opinion fails to satisfy the requirements as set forth in Escobedo6. His analysis relies primarily on the timing of Applicant's employment and the existence of pre-existing conditions, without explaining "how and why" those conditions are causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation. As explained in Escobedo, a medical opinion on apportionment must do more than state percentages. It must explain the causal relationship between the industrial injury and the permanent disability and separately explain how and why nonindustrial factors are responsible for a portion of that disability. Dr. Mack's reports do not provide this required analysis. The deficiency is also apparent with respect to the cubital tunnel syndrome. While Dr. Mack relates this condition to the elbow pathology, he does not explain why 50% of the resulting disability is attributable to nonindustrial factors or identify what those factors are. A mere medical relationship between conditions does not establish apportionment. Because Defendant bears the burden of proof on apportionment, and because the medical evidence offered does not constitute substantial evidence, the Court is not permitted to rely upon it. Accordingly, an unapportioned award is warranted.

  The Appeals Board found Dr. Mack's apportionment opinion was not substantial evidence as it lacked required detailed explanation and reasoning, thus denying apportionment and awarding an unapportioned permanent disability.

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ19285806 · 2026-01-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the October 1, 2025 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from April 21, 2017 to April 29, 2021, claims to have sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, back, spine, arms, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, hips, legs, knees, ankles, feet, toes, internal [system], [ears, nose, throat/temporomandibular joint], neurological [system]/psych[e], hearing, vision, sleep, and chronic pain. The WCJ determined that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim of injury.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's denial of subject matter jurisdiction was premature and granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the entire record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17606447 · 2025-11-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 14, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from June 1, 2006 to October 1, 2015, claims to have sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, back, thighs, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral fingers, bilateral legs, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral toes, feet, internal, ENT/TMG, neurological, psyche, and sleep. The WCJ found that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Philadelphia Phillies and the Fargo-Moorehead Redhawks.

  The Board preliminarily found that the WCJ erred in finding lack of personal jurisdiction because the applicant was recruited and signed contracts with both teams in California, establishing sufficient contacts for jurisdiction, warranting reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13556390 · 2025-08-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.10IV. Accordingly, we grant defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study whether defendants are exempt from California jurisdiction under Labor Code § 3600.5(b) and related exemptions, deferring final decision pending further review.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ18852673 · 2025-07-14 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2The issue submitted for decision was: Does California have subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim of cumulative traumatic injury?

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study whether meeting the elements in Labor Code section 3600.5(d)(1)(A) and (B) alone is sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction in California, deferring final decision pending further review.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13704483 · 2025-07-07 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Finally, defendant avers the WCJ improperly rejected the nonindustrial apportionment identified by both PTP Dr. Einbund and QME Dr. Tran. Defendant observes that both physicians reviewed relevant medical records and offered apportionment opinions based thereon. (Petition, at p. 7:6.) However, we agree with the WCJ's assessment that a review of the records is not the relevant standard with respect to whether an apportionment opinion constitutes substantial evidence. As we noted in our en banc decision in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 [2005 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 71] (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Escobedo), the mere fact that a physician's report purports to address the issue of causation of permanent disability and makes an apportionment determination by finding the approximate respective percentages of industrial and non-industrial causation does not necessarily render the report substantial evidence upon which we may rely. Rather, the report must disclose familiarity with the concepts of apportionment, describe in detail the exact nature of the apportionable disability, and set forth the basis for the opinion that factors other than the industrial injury at issue caused permanent disability. (Id. at p. 621.) Our decision in Escobedo summed up the minimum requirements for an apportionment analysis as follows:

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found that Dr. Einbund's apportionment opinion did not adequately explain how and why nonindustrial factors caused permanent disability, thus it was not substantial evidence to support apportionment to nonindustrial causes. Defendant did not meet burden of proof for apportionment.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ18315308 · 2025-05-09 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 27, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from April 1, 2016 to March 1, 2019, sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, legs, nervous system, psychiatric/psyche, and "multiple parts." The WCJ found that California has subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim of injury.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that California has subject matter jurisdiction because applicant accepted a verbal offer of employment in California, forming a contract of hire under California law, and that the WCAB's jurisdiction is not preempted by federal law or the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18315308 · 2025-04-14 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 27, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from April 1, 2016 to March 1, 2019, sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, legs, nervous system, psychiatric/psyche, and "multiple parts". The WCJ found that California has subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim of injury.

  The WCJ found California has jurisdiction based on contract formation in California; defendant challenged WCAB jurisdiction over CBA interpretation; WCAB granted reconsideration to further review jurisdiction and CBA interpretation issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15824668 · 2024-11-07 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.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 contract was formed, which is critical to determining jurisdiction. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to clarify this.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ15824668 · 2024-10-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedeferred

  Determinative passage · p.3The issue here is whether the exemption found in sections 3600.5(c) and (d) apply to bar

  The Board granted reconsideration to further review the applicability of the exemption under sections 3600.5(c) and (d) given the facts about the applicant's work in California and the contract formation issue.

  Official decision · page 3 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• PRO ATHLETE LAW GROUP
• PRO ATHLETE LAW
• PRO ATHLETE LAW GROUP, P.C.
• Pro Athlete Law Group
• PRO ATHLETE LAW GROUP, PC
• Pro Athlete Law Group, P.C.
• Pro Athlete Law Group P.C.
• PRO ATHLETE LAW SAN DIEGO
• PRO ATHLETE GROUP, P.C.
• PRO-ATHLETE LAW GROUP
• Pro Athlete Law

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.