Tampa Bay Buccaneers; Ace/Pacific Employers Ellis Wyms WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAELLIS WYMS, Applicant,vs.TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS; ACE/PACIFIC EMPLOYERS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7593509 (Santa Ana District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Defendant seeks reconsideration of the January 30, 2013 Finding And Award of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) who appears to have found that applicant incurred industrial injury to various body parts while employed as a football player by defendant Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Tampa) during the period July 18, 2001 to February 27, 2009, causing 73% permanent disability without apportionment and need for future medical treatment.1 Defendant contends that applicant agreed in his employment contracts to file any claim for workers’ compensation in Florida, and that the forum selection clause should be enforced in accordance with the recent en banc decision of the Appeals Board in McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23 (McKinley). An answer was received from applicant. The WCJ was not available to provide a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration. Reconsideration is granted. The January 30, 2013 Finding And Award is rescinded and the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by a WCJ. 1 The WCJ’s findings are ambiguous. In Finding 1, the WCJ states that applicant “claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment,” but he entered an award indicating that industrial injury was found. (Emphasis added.) Similarly, Finding 4 states, “The applicant does not need [sic] for future medical care for the injured body parts on an orthopedic basis only,” but the award provides for future medical treatment “in accordance to paragraph No. 4 above.” We do not further address these ambiguities in light of our
