Daily Blast December 3, 2013

Today, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five (Los Angeles), issued an opinion in Federal Insurance Company v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, et. al. (Dec. 3, 2013, B249201) __ Cal.App.4th __, analyzing whether California may provide a forum for a workers’ compensation claim based on an applicant who was a professional basketball player, not employed by a California team, had never resided in California and had played only one professional game in California. (Slip opn., p. 2.) The Court of Appeal held that “California does not have a sufficient interest in this matter to apply its workers’ compensation law and to retain jurisdiction over the case.” (Ibid.)

The employee/applicant, a professional basketball player, sustained injury to her right knee in 1999 and 2001 while playing for the Orlando Miracle, which became the Connecticut Sun in 2003. (Slip opn., pp. 2-3.) In 2003, the applicant signed a two-year contract with the Connecticut Sun. (Id. at p. 3.) The applicant filed a workers’ compensation claim in Connecticut for the injury to her right knee, which resolved in a settlement. The applicant played 34 games in 2003, and only one game was played in Los Angeles, California. During that season, the applicant injured her knee again, which required surgery in 2004. The applicant never resided in California during her employment with the Orlando Miracle or Connecticut Sun. The applicant made a claim against her employer, the Connecticut Sun, for workers’ compensation and filed the claim in California “for her multiple basketball injuries.” (Ibid.) The Workers’ Compensation Judge awarded the applicant disability indemnity. On reconsideration, “the Board rescinded the award and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings to apportion the compensation between the present injury and past injuries for which she already received workers’ compensation benefits in Connecticut.” (Id. at p. 4.) The applicant’s employer and insurer petitioned for writ of review, “contending that the Board does not have jurisdiction over claim.” (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal determined that California lacked “a sufficient relationship with injuries.” (Slip opn., p. 12.) The court explained that insufficient contacts that require the employer “to defend the case . . . would be a denial of due process such that the courts of this state do not have authority to act.” (Ibid.) “interest of the forum state is to be weighed against that of another state.” (Id. at p. 13.) In other words, “if the forum state lacks a sufficient connection to the matter, it will, in effect, give full faith and credit to workers’ compensation law of another state that has such sufficient connection to the matter.” (Ibid.) The appellate court concluded that “situs of employment relationship is Connecticut or New Jersey, not California.” (Id. at p. 15.) “A single basketball game played by a professional player does not create a legitimate interest in injuries that cannot be traced factually to one game.” (Ibid.) According to the court, “place of injuries, employment relationship, employment contract, and residence, all possible connections for the application of a state’s workers’ compensation law, do not have any relationship to California.” (Ibid.) Thus, “as a matter of due process, California does not have the power to entertain claim.” (Ibid.)

Related Practices

• Appellate