CALIFORNIA EXPANDS ITS ATHLETIC CLAIMS NET
Labor Code Section 3600.5(d)(1) was designed to curtail the rampant filing of claims in California by out-of-state professional athletes. However, the restrictiveness of LC 3600.5(d)(1) was somewhat subdued in
ACE v WCAB (Totten
)(2018) Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 106, in which the applicant played for a LA Dodgers minor league team, but never played any actual games within California. Nevertheless, the WCAB determined California had jurisdiction because the applicant was hired, supervised and directly paid by a team that was "California-based". [COMMENT: An important fact is the applicant was actually paid by the Dodgers as oppose to just playing for one of their related minor league teams which are typically independent franchises.]
MEDICAL UNIT REQUIRED TO ISSUE REPLACEMENT PANEL
Oceanside USD v.WCAB (Orea)(2018) Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 105 , the Applicant unilaterally scheduled a PQME appointment beyond 90-day frame in violation of Regulations 31.3 and 31.5 which require a written agreement for appointments beyond 90 days. Applicant then objected to the report and requested a new panel over the objection of the defense.
WCAB held that because the parties did not agree in writing to waive the 90-day time frame as required by statute, the report was invalid and the Medical Unit was required to issue a replacement panel.