By Nicole Bryson, J.D.
Introduction
Wayne Gandy (“Gandy”) played fifteen years in the National Football League (“NFL”) as an offensive lineman with multiple teams. Six years after he retired, he filed a worker’s compensation claim in California naming the Rams. It was later amended to include his other NFL employers, the Pittsburgh Steelers (“Steelers”), New Orleans Saints (“Saints”) and Atlanta Falcons (“Falcons”), creating the conundrum of which Defendant should be liable for Gandy’s workers compensation injury claim in California. The trial Judge declined to exercise jurisdiction over the non-California teams per Labor Code 3600.5(c) and (d). The California Workers Compensation Appeals Board, (“WCAB”), overruled the trial judge and opined that California had jurisdiction over the other named defendants per Labor Code 3600.5(a) since applicant once played for a California team. The Atlanta Falcons, appealed to the California Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed the WCAB, holding that California lacked jurisdiction over the Falcons per Labor Code Section 3600 (c) and (d). Gandy v. The Atlanta Falcons, et al, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, Case No. G064622, (WCAB Case. No. ADJ1010126), (10-7-2025)). The case was remanded back to the WCAB for further proceedings, consistent with the Court of Appeal opinion.
Background
Gandy was the 15th pick in the first round of the 1994 draft by the Los Angeles Rams. He went on to play 15 seasons as an offensive linemen in the NFL, with the Los Angeles Rams in 1994, St. Louis Rams 1995-1998, Pittsburgh Steelers 1999-2003, the New Orleans Saints, 2003-2005, before ending with the Atlanta Falcons, 2006-2009. Playing offensive line in the NFL carries substantial well-documented physical and long-term health risks. Linemen are generally the largest players on the field, playing in the “trenches”, often involved in high impact collisions. Gandy himself was listed as 6’6” and 315 pounds. With the combination of mass, leverage and force at the line of scrimmage, no one disputes the risk of injury involved.
‘
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
The battle over [California] Workers’ Compensation cannot be understood without looking at the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). In fact, the NFL-NFL Players’ Association have express provisions in the CBA structuring worker’s compensation. The CBA states, in Article 41: “Section 1. In any state where workers’ compensation coverage is not compulsory or where a Club is excluded from a state’s workers’ compensation coverage, a Club will either voluntarily obtain coverage under the compensation laws of that state or otherwise guarantee equivalent benefits to its players under the compensation law of the state in which his Club is located.
Section 2. states: “A Club that has the legal right to reject coverage under the workers’ compensation law of its state. Moreover, any Club may be excluded from those laws if it elects to do so. However, if a Club elects to reject or be excluded from coverage under the compensation law of its state, it must nevertheless guarantee benefits to its Players in the manner provided in Section 1 above. “
Flowing from the collectively bargained provisions in Sections 1 and 2 above, the NFL and the NFL Players Association agreed on uniform contract language that steers workers compensation claims to the team’s home state. These provisions were created to prevent players from filing claims in states like California where cumulative trauma claims were more likely to succeed and benefits were more generous.
For the NFL and team owners, the CBA functions as the central risk management tool providing predictability in limiting liability to one team, one state and one workers’ compensation system. One might ask why the NFL Players’ Association agree to jurisdictional limits on where claims could be filed. As part of the bargaining process, the players received other benefits including higher minimum salaries, and expanded injury protections during and post career outside of workers’ compensation.
The CBA is more than a labor peace document. It is the mechanism through which risk is allocated and legal exposure is managed. Thus, the NFL and team owners fight to control [California] workers’ compensation benefits became as important as over the field of play.
The California Worker’s Compensation Process Begins
On September 14, 2015, six years after his NFL career ended with the Falcons, Gandy filed a lawsuit in California for workers’ compensation benefits. The cause alleged was a cumulative trauma injury throughout his NFL career from 4/25/1993 to 2/27/2009, involving injuries to his head, brain, face, neck, trunk, multiple other body parts and nervous system. The lawsuit initially only named the Los Angeles Rams who are a California based team and the St. Louis Rams since he continued to play under his California contract with the St. Louis Rams. Applicant also played seven games in California while with the St. Louis Rams.
The suit was later amended to include the Steelers, Saints and Falcons whom applicant played for over the last decade of his NFL career. Gandy played 2 games in California while playing for the Steelers and Falcons respectively. He also played 4 games and spent 1 week of practice in California with the Saints.
Pursuant to Labor Code 5500.5(a), liability for a cumulative trauma injury is limited to the employers who employed the worker during the one-year period immediately preceding the date of injury (LC 5412), or the last date of injurious exposure, whichever occurs first. Under Labor Code 5412 the date of injury is defined as the first date someone suffers both disability (i.e. missed time from work, medical treatment beyond first aid, or disability payment), and knows the disability is work related.
Based on the pleadings, per Labor Code 5500.5, the last year of injurious exposure would be 2/27/2008 to 2/27/2009. The Falcons would be the lone defendant in the last year of injurious exposure, if California jurisdiction extends to applicant’s employment with the non-California teams including the Falcons.
LABOR CODE 3600.5
Labor Code Section 3600.5 was enacted in 1955 to clarify and expand coverage for California employees injured outside the State and to limit California benefits for out of state employees temporarily working in California. The intent was partly to reduce workers’ compensation insurance costs for employers.
Pursuant to Labor Code Section 3600.5 (a) California employees injured outside the State are entitled to California worker’s compensation benefits. (b) out of state employees temporarily working in California are exempt if covered by any another state’s workers’ compensation system.
In 2013, there was a significant amendment, AB 1309, later codified as Labor Code 3600.5 (c)(d) specifically targeting professional athletes. The amendment applied to claims filed after September 15, 2013, and injurie occurring after January 1, 2014. It exempted certain out-of-state professional athletes from California’s cumulative injury provisions if: they were1) hired outside of California worked temporarily in California for less than 20% of his her/duty days during the year immediately preceding the last day of work for that employer, the employer provides reciprocal workers compensation coverage under another state’s law.
Labor Code Section 3600.5 (c) states that professional athletes hired outside of CA are exempt from cumulative injury claims if covered by any another state’s workers’ compensation system. (d) if a professional athlete has both California and non-California employers, the claim is exempt when all of the employers in the last year of work as a pro athlete are exempted unless: 1) the pro athlete has worked 2 or more seasons for a California based team or 20% or more of his/her duty days in California or for a California based team and 2) has worked fewer than seven seasons for any teams other than a California based team.
Before 2013, California allowed cumulative trauma claims even for athletes who played only a few games in the State. This attracted voluminous claims from retired athletes who had minimal California ties because: California recognizes cumulative trauma injuries and California has a long statute of limitations for filing such claims. The increased number of claims created financial strain on California teams and insurers and clogged the WCAB with cases that had little connection to California.
TRIAL COURT/RECONSIDERATION
Gandy’s case proceeded to trial in June 2019 on three issues: 1) whether California has jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim; 2) whether jurisdiction should be exercised in light of the Choice of Law & Choice of Frum clauses in Gandy’s contracts with the Falcons and Saints (Mckinley v. AZ Cardinals, 78 Cal Comp Cases 23 (2013); and 3) whether Gandy’s claim against the Falcons was barred by the statute of limitations.
The trial Judge held the Falcons were exempt because they provided workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Gandy under the laws of another state, and that such insurance provided coverage for Gandy in California and Atlanta for all relevant time Gandy was working for the Falcons.
On Reconsideration, the WCAB determined jurisdiction extends to any athlete who ever signed a contract in California or with any California based team. Hansell v. Arizona Diamondbacks 87 Cal Comp Cases 602 (2022). The WCAB has jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim because he signed a contract for his first season in the National Football League with the Los Angeles Rams, a California based team. Any choice of law/forum selection clause should not be enforced. The legislature did not intend for 3600.5(c) and (d) to apply to athletes who have been hired in CA by at least one employer during the CT period. Counsel for the Falcons petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of review which was granted.
APPELLATE COURT DECISION
The Court of Appeal performs review de novo, starting with the statutory language. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. WCAB 17 Cal 5th 510,520 (2025). If there is a conflict, the statutes should be harmonized. If the statutes can’t be reconciled, the later enactments supersede earlier ones, and more specific provisions take precedence over general ones. State Dept. of Public Health V. Superior Court 60 Cal. 4th 940, 955 (2015).
California workers’ compensation is solely a creation of the legislature and fundamental subject matter jurisdiction is limited by statute. In the absence of a statute affirmatively conferring subject matter jurisdiction over a claim to the WCAB, it lacks authority to adjudicate the claim.
The legislature in fact explicitly addressed the issue posed by Gandy’s claim of what happens when a pro athlete is hired by both California and non-California teams over the course of his employment and suffers a cumulative trauma injury. Labor Code 3600.5 (d) exempts claims when all the professional athlete’s employers in his/her last year of work are exempt under 3600.5 (c) unless: 1) the pro athlete has worked two or more seasons for a California based team or worked 20% or more of their total career duty days for a CA based team AND 2) the pro athlete has worked for fewer than seven seasons for any non-California based teams.
Gandy fails both provisions. Of his 15 NFL seasons, only one was with a California based team, less than 20% of his total career duty days were performed in California and he played more than 7 seasons with non-California teams given his 14 seasons with the St. Lous Rams, Pittsburgh Steelers, New Orleans Saints and Atlanta Falcons.
CONCLUSION
California Labor Code § 3600.5(c) and (d) significantly restricts the ability of professional athletes to bring workers’ compensation claims in California for cumulative trauma or occupational disease when they have been hired outside the state and are only temporarily working in California, provided their employer has valid out-of-state workers’ compensation coverage that applies to their California work. These provisions, as interpreted by California courts and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), are designed to prevent “forum shopping” by athletes with minimal California contacts, while preserving access for those with substantial California ties (e.g., multiple seasons with California teams or significant duty days in California). This way players with long-term, significant California contacts like Joe Montana, and LaDanian Tomlinson, are still protected under California workers’ compensation law.
Legal professionals handling these cases must carefully analyze the athlete’s employment history, contract formation, and the scope of coverage under other states’ laws to determine jurisdiction and the proper forum for claims. Pennsylvania and Louisiana both have reciprocal extraterritorial provisions which should exempt them from California jurisdiction for purposes of workers’ compensation like the Falcons. The St. Louis Rams are not so lucky since Gandy continued to play for the St. Louis Rams under his California contract.
