Atlanta Falcons v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268
The Legislature intended to narrow California’s role in adjudicating CT claims for professional athletes whose careers were predominantly spent elsewhere.
In Atlanta Falcons v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a significant published opinion clarifying the reach—and limits—of California workers’ compensation jurisdiction over professional athletes under Labor Code section 3600.5. The decision reinforces the Legislature’s intent to restrict cumulative trauma claims filed in California by athletes whose careers were primarily spent with out-of-state teams and sharply limits reliance on a single California contract of hire as a jurisdictional anchor.
The case addresses the interplay between section 3600.5(a), which broadly extends California workers’ compensation coverage to employees hired in California or regularly working here, and subdivisions (c) and (d), enacted in 2013 to curtail cumulative trauma claims by professional athletes with limited California ties. The Court of Appeal concluded that subdivisions (c) and (d) operate as specific statutory exemptions that limit the broader jurisdictional grant in subdivision (a), and that a single California contract or single season of work in California is not, standing alone, sufficient to confer jurisdiction over a long, multistate professional career.
Factual Background
Wayne Gandy spent fifteen seasons in the National Football League between 1994 and 2009. He began his career with the Los Angeles Rams during the 1994 season, signing his initial contract in California. In 1995, the franchise relocated to Missouri, where it became the St. Louis Rams. Gandy continued under that contract through the 1998 season.
From 1999 forward, Gandy played exclusively for non-California teams: the Pittsburgh Steelers, the New Orleans Saints, and finally the Atlanta Falcons, with whom he played from 2006 until his retirement in 2009. Over the final decade of his career, he played only eight games in California. In the 365 days preceding his last day of work for the Falcons in California—a November 30, 2008 game against San Diego—Gandy’s duty days consisted of four games and approximately 250 practice days, only one of which occurred in California. This represented less than 20 percent of his duty days during the relevant period.
Six years after retiring, Gandy filed a cumulative trauma claim in California, naming multiple teams, including the Falcons. The workers’ compensation judge determined the Falcons were exempt under section 3600.5(c) and (d). On reconsideration, however, the WCAB rescinded that decision, reasoning that jurisdiction existed under section 3600.5(a) because Gandy had signed a California contract early in his career. The Falcons sought writ review.
The Statutory Framework
Section 3600.5(a) extends California workers’ compensation coverage to employees hired in California or regularly working here, even when the injury occurs out of state. California courts have historically interpreted this provision liberally. For example, in Bowen v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 15, a player who signed his contract in California was afforded coverage for an out-of-state injury.
In 2013, however, the Legislature enacted subdivisions (c) and (d) specifically to address cumulative injury claims by professional athletes. These provisions were part of a broader reform effort aimed at curbing the influx of out-of-state professional athletes filing cumulative trauma claims in California based on minimal contacts.
Subdivision (c) provides that a professional athlete hired outside California is exempt from California jurisdiction for cumulative injuries if the athlete is only “temporarily within” the state and the employer provides workers’ compensation coverage under another state’s law that applies to work performed in California. An athlete is deemed “temporarily within” California if he or she performs less than 20 percent of duty days in California during the 365 days preceding the last day worked for that employer in California.
Subdivision (d) addresses career-long cumulative trauma claims and provides a further exemption where all employers in the athlete’s final year are exempt under subdivision (c). In that circumstance, the athlete’s entire career is exempt from California jurisdiction unless two conditions are satisfied: the athlete must have either worked two or more seasons or at least 20 percent of total career duty days in California (or for a California-based team), and must have worked fewer than seven total seasons for non-California teams.
These subdivisions create a comprehensive exemption structure that narrows the jurisdiction otherwise conferred by subdivision (a).
The Court’s Analysis
The Court of Appeal approached the issue as one of statutory interpretation, reviewing the matter de novo.
The court emphasized two fundamental interpretive principles: statutes must be construed to give effect to every word, and courts must avoid constructions that render statutory provisions superfluous.
The WCAB had reasoned that section 3600.5(a) independently conferred jurisdiction because Gandy signed his initial NFL contract in California. The appellate court rejected that interpretation, finding it incompatible with the later-enacted and more specific provisions of subdivisions (c) and (d). If subdivision (a) were allowed to override subdivisions (c) and (d) whenever a California contract existed at any point during a career, the detailed exemption structure for professional athletes would be rendered meaningless.
Applying subdivision (c), the court found the Falcons were exempt because Gandy performed less than 20 percent of his duty days in California during the relevant 365-day period and the Falcons provided out-of-state workers’ compensation coverage applicable to work performed in California.
Turning to subdivision (d), the court examined Gandy’s entire fifteen-season career. He played only one season for a California-based team and did not meet the 20 percent career-duty threshold. Moreover, he played far more than seven seasons for non-California teams. Because all employers in his final year were exempt under subdivision (c), and because he failed to satisfy the two statutory conditions that would restore jurisdiction, subdivision (d) exempted both Gandy and the Falcons from California workers’ compensation coverage.
The court expressly held that “a single California contract or a single season of full-time, regular work in California is not, by itself, enough” to extend jurisdiction under the plain language of the statute.
Legislative Purpose and Structural Harmony
The court also considered legislative purpose. The 2013 amendments were intended to “essentially prohibit” out-of-state professional athletes from filing California cumulative trauma claims, while preserving limited access for athletes with substantial California contacts. Interpreting subdivision (a) to trump subdivisions (c) and (d) would undermine that purpose and effectively reopen California to claims the Legislature intended to restrict.
The court further observed that even if subdivisions (a), (c), and (d) appeared to conflict, the later-enacted and more specific provisions—subdivisions (c) and (d)—would control over the earlier and more general language of subdivision (a). This canon of construction reinforced the conclusion that the exemptions were intended to limit the broader jurisdictional grant.
Disposition and Practical Implications
The Court of Appeal annulled the WCAB’s decision and remanded the matter.
Because the Falcons were exempt under section 3600.5(c) and (d), the court did not reach the additional issues tried below, including the enforceability of forum-selection clauses or statute of limitations defenses.
This decision provides important guidance for cases involving professional athletes. When analyzing jurisdiction:
-
A single California contract early in a career does not automatically confer lifetime California jurisdiction for cumulative trauma claims.
-
The 20 percent duty-day calculation under subdivision (c) is a critical evidentiary component and must be measured against the 365 days preceding the last day worked for that employer in California.
-
Subdivision (d) requires a full-career analysis, including total seasons with California-based and non-California teams.
-
Defendants must be prepared to document duty days, practice schedules, and out-of-state insurance coverage.
The decision reflects a strict textual approach and a clear message: the Legislature intended to narrow California’s role in adjudicating cumulative trauma claims for professional athletes whose careers were predominantly spent elsewhere. Courts will enforce that limitation according to the statute’s plain language.
This article was written by: John Hicks, Senior Counsel | Mullen & Filippi, Oakland/Walnut Creek.
