A single contract of hire made in the state of California is not sufficient to give the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board jurisdiction over all sports claims filed by an athlete against non-California teams, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled in a published decision on Tuesday.
The California appellate court issued the decision in the case of Atlanta Falcons v. WCAB (Wayne Gandy), No. G064622, 10/7/25.
Wayne Gandy was a first-round draft pick of the Los Angeles Rams back in 1994. The 315-lb. left tackle was drafted with the 15th pick in the 1994 draft.
Although he signed his first contract with the L.A. Rams, Gandy went on to play for other teams during his NFL career, including the:
- Los Angeles/St. Louis Rams 1994-1998
- Pittsburgh Steelers 1999-2002
- New Orleans Saints 2003-2005
- Atlanta Falcons 2006-2008
The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board had previously ruled that it had jurisdiction over his entire NFL career, because he had signed that first Rams contract in California. This included the final year of the cumulative trauma claim, which was plead against the Atlanta Falcons.
The 4th DCA disagreed in Tuesday’s ruling. In the decision, the appellate justices wrote that Gandy’s case did not meet the new criteria set forth by the passage of AB 1309 in 2013.
AB 1309 added tests set forth in Labor Code section 3600.5(c) and (d) that guide jurisdiction over claims. The 4th DCA determined that Gandy failed both tests.
LC 3600.5(c) bars cumulative trauma (CT) claims where:
- The athlete was hired outside of California
- The athlete performed less than 20% of their duty days in California
Gandy was indeed hired outside of California when he signed with the Atlanta Falcons, and a close analysis showed that he played less than 20% of his duty days in California. Therefore, his claim was barred by LC 3600.5(c), the justices concluded.
Moving on to the next statute, LC 3600.5(d)’s test applies to players like Gandy, who sign with a California team, but then move onto playing for other teams throughout their career. LC 3600.5(d)’s criteria says the WCAB has jurisdiction when the athlete:
- Completes two or more seasons for a California team, or have at least 20% of his duty days in California
- And to have worked for less than seven seasons for non-California teams.
The Rams moved to St. Louis, Mo., after the 1994 season. This meant that Gandy only played one season for a California team. Gandy then went on to play the rest of his career for teams outside of California. An analysis of his duty days revealed that 20% of his duty days were not in California either.
As a result, the court concluded that Gandy failed the two prongs of LC 3600.5(d) as well.
“The Falcons are exempted from California’s workers’ compensation claw in connection with Gandy’s claimed cumulative injury,” the court wrote. The justices remanded the case back to the WCAB for further proceedings.
BUT WAIT, THAT’S NOT ALL
It’s definitely worth noting that the applicant’s attorney in this case still has time to appeal. While the California Supreme Court only grants review to a small number of the petitions for review that it receives, the potential for an appeal still does exist at this point in time.
As such, Bradford and Barthel’s Sports Law Department will continue to monitor the case to see if there are further proceedings worth reporting on. Stay tuned!
Got a question about workers’ compensation defense issues or pending legislation? Feel free to contact John P. Kamin. Mr. Kamin is a workers’ compensation defense attorney and partner at Bradford & Barthel’s Woodland Hills location, where he monitors the recent legislative affairs as the firm’s Director of the Editorial Board. Mr. Kamin previously worked as a journalist for WorkCompCentral, where he reported on work-related injuries in all 50 states. Please feel free to contact John at jkamin@bradfordbarthel.com or at (818) 654-0411.
Viewing this website does not form an attorney/client relationship between you and Bradford & Barthel, LLP or any of its attorneys. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. This document is not a substitute for legal advice and may not address every factual scenario. If you have a legal question, we encourage you to contact your favorite Bradford & Barthel, LLP attorney to discuss the legal issues applicable to your unique case. No website is entirely secure, so please be cautious with information provided through the contact form or email. Do not assume confidentiality exists in anything you send through this website or email, until an attorney/client relationship is formed.