Approximately 135 million viewers around the world tuned in to watch the New England Patriots (again!) take on the Seattle Seahawks at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara for Super Bowl 60.
Why is this relevant to California workers’ comp?
Glad you asked.
Historically, any football player (or pro basketball player, baseball player, etc), who had even the slightest contact with California (such as playing in a Super Bowl in Santa Clara) would, at the end of their career, file a CT in California running from the day they became a player to the last time they hung up their cleats.
If you’ve watched the NFL, you have a pretty good idea how injured players are at the end their career. These men are modern day gladiators. Thus, the primary issue in such cases has rarely been injury AOE/COE. It has been jurisdiction.
Why jurisdiction?
Sophisticated players sent their DWC-1 to one state: California. Why? California has long provided one of the most generous workers’ compensation packages in the U.S.
How tough was it to get into California’s program if, for example, they signed their contract in Florida and never played for any team other than the Dolphins, reaching California one or two times in their career for a “road game”? Not difficult at all. The likelihood of a player with even minimal California contact successfully filing in our great state can be described by a catchphrase of one of the original Monday Night Football commentators, Howard Cosell:
“He… could… go… all… the… way!!”
The threshold for the WCAB to assert jurisdiction over a pro’s claim was extremely low — often described as requiring “minimum contacts.” If they played one game or practiced in California, and/or signed their employment contract in California, this was considered sufficient “minimum contacts” to assert jurisdiction.
Finally, someone in California (that someone being the state Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown), decided to close what angry, rich (very rich. The average owner is able to feed their children given their worth of a mere $10.6 billion!) owners called “loopholes.” Via legislation, severe restrictions on jurisdiction were created:
Why was this controversial?
- The “Billionaire Giveaway”: Opponents, including the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), argued the law was a gift to billionaire owners, shifting the cost of long-term medical care (like dementia and Alzheimer’s) from private insurance to the players themselves.
The owners have had a field day when combatting the NFLPA on jurisdiction. Things have gotten significantly worse for players.
How tough is now to get Golden State’s jurisdiction?
Based on a combination of legislation, the Labor Code, and case law – a professional athlete must generally prove a substantial work history in California.
What must the athlete prove?
According to LC 3600.5(d), applicants must get past these two tests:
1. The “Two-Season” or “20%” Rule
- Two Seasons for a CA Team: They played for a California-based team (e.g., 49ers, Rams, Chargers… say “so long, Raiders!) for two or more full seasons, and/or
- 20% of Duty Days: They performed 20% or more of their total career “duty days” (practices, games, meetings, travel) in California.
2. The “Fewer Than Seven Seasons” Hurdle
Even if an athlete played for a California team, they may still be barred if they spent the vast majority of their careers elsewhere. Jurisdiction is often limited if the athlete worked for seven or more seasons for teams based outside of California.
“One team, One State”
Just because a player started their career in California, it doesn’t mean California covers potential claims forever. They must meet strict “duty day” requirements (at least 20% of your time in the state) during your final year.
This based on LC 3600.5(c), which says that cumulative trauma claims are barred if:
- The athlete was hired outside of California
- The athlete performed less than 20% of their duty days in California
Don’t Bet on it!
Will this all of change someday? Will professional athletes again be welcomed to the California workers’ compensation system?
Absolutely? Absolutely probably? Absolutely possibly? I have absolutely no idea. Many vested interests would like to see a swing back towards a more liberal jurisdictional claim. The entire system is about due for its semi-regular overhaul. I suspect this will be a more liberal swing away from the conservative wave known as SV 899.
I’m not going to bet on it…would you? With estimates that tens of billions of dollars will be bet—legally and illegally-on Sunday’s game, I suspect some of us would be willing to lay a bet.
Let’s wait for Vegas to give us the line.
Any takers?*
Recent 2026 Update
As of the beginning of this year, the WCAB has begun dismissing even more claims from former players lack jurisdiction if the athlete cannot prove “injurious exposure” specifically tied to California teams in their final seasons.
Wayne Gandy played 15 seasons in the NFL (1994–2008). His career began with the Los Angeles Rams (1 season in California), followed by long stints with the Steelers, Saints, and finally the Atlanta Falcons.
Before Gandy’s case hit the appellate courts, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) 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.
On appeal, the 4th District Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed.
Legal Reasoning: The “Two-Season” & “20%” Rules
The appellate court based its decision on California Labor Code sections 3600.5(c) and (d). These sections create specific exemptions for professional athletes working for out-of-state teams.
To file a cumulative injury claim in California, an athlete generally must meet one of the following thresholds:
- Work for a California-based team for at least two seasons.
- Spend at least 20% of their total career “duty days” working in California.
Why Gandy Failed the Test:
- Insufficient CA Tenure: Gandy played only one season for a California-based team (the Rams) before they moved to St. Louis.
- Minimal Duty Days: Over his 15-year career, he spent less than 20% of his working days in California.
- Non-CA Focus: He played 14 of his 15 seasons for teams based outside of California (Steelers, Saints, Falcons).
Because Gandy did not meet these statutory thresholds, the court ruled that the specific exemptions for athletes applied, shielding the Atlanta Falcons from liability under California law.
Significance of the Ruling
This ruling is viewed as a major victory for out-of-state sports franchises and insurers. It clarifies that a player cannot use a brief, early stint in California (like a rookie year) as a “golden ticket” to access California’s player-friendly workers’ compensation system years later, provided the majority of their career was spent elsewhere.
* Footnote: *The “funniest” successful bet I know of goes to a fan during the 2021 Super Bowl who bet $50k that a fan would run onto the field. Sure enough, one did: him! The rest of the story: he was tackled and fined $1,000, but his bet reportedly paid out nearly $400k!
Don R. Barthel is one of the founding partners of Bradford and Barthel, and is based in the firm’s Sacramento office. He has taken dozens of doctor depositions and analyzed thousands of doctor depositions in order to correct innumerable errors, including misapplications of the AMA Guides, statutory misunderstandings, and other errors making the underlying medical reporting entirely speculative and unreliable. If you have any questions about workers’ compensation defense issues, please feel free to contact him at 818.654.0411 or via email at dbarthel@bradfordbarthel.com.
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.