4th DCA Clarifies Jurisdiction over Professional Athlete Claims

The scope of California's jurisdiction over cumulative trauma claims filed by professional athletes has long been a contentious issue. California workers' compensation laws are generally more liberal than laws in other states. So professional athletes commonly file workers' compensation claims in California, even when they have a limited connection to the state and have long histories of playing for out-of-state teams.

In 2013, the Legislature passed AB 1309, which amended Labor Code § 3600.5 to limit workers' compensation claims in California by out-of-state professional athletes. The bill was intended to address a loophole in the California workers' compensation system that was deemed to be detrimental to state interests and to its sports teams. Specifically, as a result of the "last employer over which California has jurisdiction" rule, California teams were facing cumulative injury claims from players with extremely minimal California contacts, but substantial playing histories for teams in other states. In addition, out-of-state sports teams were having claims filed against them in California, resulting in several consequences including: (1) clogging the WCAB with cases that should be filed in another state, thereby delaying cases of California employees; (2) forcing insured California employers to absorb rapidly escalating costs being incurred by CIGA; and (3) increasing pressure on insurers to raise workers' compensation rates in California to cover the rising and unanticipated costs.

The current statute, LC 3600.5(c)(3), prohibits a professional athlete who has been hired outside of this state from pursuing a claim for an occupational disease or cumulative injury, if "during the 365 consecutive days immediately preceding the professional athlete’s last day of work for the employer within the state, the professional athlete performs less than 20 percent of his or her duty days in California during that 365-day period in California." LC 3600.5(d) provides an exception to the general rule of exemption for out-of-state players if they can establish that: (1) over their professional athletic careers, they worked for two or more seasons for a California-based team or worked 20 percent or more of their duty days either in California or for a California-based team; AND (2) they worked for fewer than seven seasons for any team or teams other than a California-based team or teams.

Despite those efforts to reduce claims filed by out-of-state professional athletes, the appeals board commonly held that LC 3600.5(c)(d) did not preclude California jurisdiction when the athlete was hired in California by at least one employer during the cumulative trauma period. It relied on LC 3600.5(a), which allows a person to pursue workers' compensation benefits in California if they were hired in the state.

On Oct. 7, 2025, the 4th District Court of Appeal issued its published decision in Atlanta Falcons v. WCAB (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal. App. 5th 1268, decisively rejecting the WCAB's interpretation. The court clarified that the specific exemption for professional athletes must be given effect, and provided a clear framework for determining when California can exercise jurisdiction over these complex cumulative injury claims.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Wayne Gandy had a 15-year career as a professional football player. His first season in 1994 was with the Los Angeles Rams under a contract signed in California. For the next 14 years, he played for various out-of-state teams, including the Atlanta Falcons. He never again played for a California-based team. During the last decade of his employment as a professional football player, Gandy played a total of eight games in California and did a week of practice in California.

Six years after retiring, Gandy filed a cumulative trauma claim in California against all of his former employers. The workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that both Gandy and the Atlanta Falcons were exempt from California jurisdiction under the specific provisions of LC 3600.5(c)(d). The WCAB reversed, holding that because Gandy had once signed a contract in California, it had jurisdiction over the entire cumulative trauma claim pursuant to LC 3600.5(a). The Atlanta Falcons filed a petition for a writ of review.

COURT OF APPEAL'S DECISION

The Court of Appeal annulled the WCAB's decision, calling its interpretation of the statute "fundamentally flawed." The court held that the WCAB had erred by allowing the general jurisdictional rule in LC 3600.5(a) to render the specific exemptions in LC 3600.5(c)(d) superfluous.

Applying established principles of statutory interpretation, the court explained that more specific statutory provisions that were enacted later prevail over older, more general ones. LC 3600.5(c) and (d) were added specifically to address cumulative injury claims by professional athletes, and therefore control the analysis.

The court found that the Falcons were exempted from the WCAB's jurisdiction under the terms of LC 3600.5(c). In the 365 days preceding his last day of work, none of the practices and only one of the games was in California. So Gandy performed less than 20 percent of his duty days in California during that 365-day period.

The court explained that an athlete's career is not governed by California law if the employers from the last year of work are exempt under LC 3600.5(c), unless the athlete satisfies a two-part exception to the exemption outlined in LC 3600.5(d). To reiterate that qualification, an athlete must show that:(1) he or she spent either two or more seasons or 20 percent of his or her total career working in California or for a California-based team; and (2) he or she spent fewer than seven total seasons working for any non-California team or teams. Gandy failed both parts of the test because he played only one season for a California team, and he played for 14 seasons with non-California teams. Because he did not meet the requirements for the exception, the exemption from California jurisdiction applied.

The court then rejected the WCAB's determination that it has jurisdiction under LC 3600.5(a) over any athlete who ever signed a contract in California or with a California team, regardless of LC 3600.5(c)(d). The court stated:

The Legislature’s purpose in enacting section 3600.5(c) and (d) was to limit the extent to which California workers’ compensation benefits would be available to professional athletes suffering from cumulative injuries suffered over a course of years. More specifically, the legislature’s purpose was to “essentially prohibit ... professional athletes employed by out of state teams from filing California workers’ compensation claims,” while “allow[ing] some of these athletes who have defined prior contacts with California teams to file claims.” (Assem. Conc. Sen. Amends. to Assem. Bill No. 1309 (2013–2014 Reg. Sess.) as amended Sept. 5, 2013, p. 3.) Interpreting section 3600.5 in the manner proposed by the WCAB would fly in the face of this purpose by allowing any athlete with a cumulative injury who was ever hired by a California-based team to assert a claim in California. It also flies in the face of the statutory language itself, as section 3600.5(d) clearly contemplates that some athletes who previously worked for California-based teams in California will not be covered.

ANALYSIS

The Gandy decision provides significant clarity on the application of the professional athlete exception and is a major victory for out-of-state sports teams. It effectively shuts down the legal theory that a single contract signed in California at the start of a long career can serve as a permanent anchor for jurisdiction over a later cumulative trauma claim.

The decision establishes that the specific, mechanical tests in LC 3600.5(c)(d) are the controlling law for cumulative trauma claims by professional athletes. The analysis no longer stops at determining if any contract was ever signed in California. Instead, for cumulative trauma claims involving professional athletes, the focus must be on a quantitative assessment of the athlete's entire career history, specifically the number of seasons played for California-based teams and non-California teams.

This ruling provides defense counsel with a powerful tool to challenge jurisdiction in cases with similar fact patterns, preventing the "jurisdiction shopping" that the 2013 legislative amendments were intended to curb. Conversely, applicants' attorneys now must conduct a rigorous preliminary analysis of an athlete's career to determine whether a claim in California is viable, as the jurisdictional gateway has been significantly narrowed.

For further discussion of jurisdiction over claims by professional athletes under LC 3600.5(c)(d), see Sullivan on Comp, Section 2.9 Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Injury.