What the panel ordered
Findings and Order issued by WCA on February 3, 2022, affirmed by the Appeals Board after reconsideration on October 8, 2024.
Petitions for reconsideration filed by defendants after a WCA Findings and Order; Appeals Board granted reconsideration and issued decision after reconsideration affirming the WCA order.
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.
The Appeals Board found that personal jurisdiction was properly established over the New Britain Bees in California and that the Liberty Mutual insurance policy covered the applicant's claim under the terms of the policy and applicable law.
From the decision · page 7On February 3, 2022, the WCA issued his Findings and Order in which he found there was personal jurisdiction over defendant NBB in California for applicant's claim, and that the insurance policy issued to NBB by LMIC covered applicant. He ordered LMIC to provide an appropriate legal defense to NBB by LMIC in the claim filed by applicant in California with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant signed his employment contract with New Britain Bees in California and performed work in California as required by his contract.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established personal jurisdiction over the New Britain Bees in California and triggered coverage under the Liberty Mutual insurance policy.
From the decision · page 9report to an abbreviated spring training ready to play. (See, Transcript of proceedings, page 18, lines 2-22). The Applicant testified that after signing and returning his contract to NEW BRITAIN, he performed work in California on behalf of NEW BRITAIN as required by his contract. (See, Transcript of proceedings, page 45, line 7; See also, page 41 line 15 through page 45 line 7; See also, page 17 line 5 through page 23 line 1). This testimony was not rebutted at trial.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 5305
This statute provides that the WCAB has jurisdiction over claims where the employee is hired or regularly working in California, even if the injury occurs outside the state.
From the decision · page 10*** Labor Code § 5305 reflects the fact that the WCAB has jurisdiction over
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's unrebutted testimony that he signed his contract with New Britain Bees in California and performed work in California as required by his contract.
From the decision · page 9report to an abbreviated spring training ready to play. (See, Transcript of proceedings, page 18, lines 2-22). The Applicant testified that after signing and returning his contract to NEW BRITAIN, he performed work in California on behalf of NEW BRITAIN as required by his contract. (See, Transcript of proceedings, page 45, line 7; See also, page 41 line 15 through page 45 line 7; See also, page 17 line 5 through page 23 line 1). This testimony was not rebutted at trial.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.