News and Insights

Gerald Paddio, vs. Cleveland Cavaliers; Seattle Supersonics; Indiana Pacers; Washington Bullets/Washington Wizards; Tig Insurance; New York Knickerbockers; Chicago Rockers; Las Vegas Slam/ Chicago Skyliners; Travelers Indemnity Company,

Cleveland Cavaliers; Seattle Supersonics; Indiana Pacers; Washington Bullets/Washington Wizards; Tig Insurance; New York Knickerbockers; Chicago Rockers; Las Vegas Slam/ Chicago Skyliners; Travelers Indemnity Company, Gerald Paddio, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGERALD PADDIO,Applicant,vs.CLEVELAND CAVALIERS; SEATTLE SUPERSONICS; INDIANA PACERS; WASHINGTON BULLETS/WASHINGTON WIZARDS; TIG INSURANCE; NEW YORK KNICKERBOCKERS; CHICAGO ROCKERS; LAS VEGAS SLAM/ CHICAGO SKYLINERS; TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,Defendants.Case No. ADJ7041227(Santa Ana District Office)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant’s petition for reconsideration of the September 20, 2016 Findings And Order of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) was earlier granted in order to further study the record and issues in the case. 1 The WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not present substantial evidence to establish that the WCAB has subject matter jurisdiction over his claim pursuant to either Labor Code section 3600.5 or Labor Code section 5305, and further found that the WCAB “does not have a sufficient and substantial interest” to assert subject matter jurisdiction and that “the Trial Court declines to assert California WCAB subject matter jurisdiction in this matter.”2            Applicant claims to have sustained cumulative industrial injury to multiple body parts while employed as a professional basketball player by several employers from 1988 through 2006. Applicant contends that the WCAB has subject matter jurisdiction over his injury and claim pursuant to sections 3600.5 and 5305 and that the contrary findings of the WCJ are in error because there is substantial 1 Applicant did not request permission before filing his 28 page petition, which exceeds the 25 page limit expressed in the Appeals Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure 10845. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10845(a).) However, permission was subsequently requ

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Join our community and never miss an update. Stay connected with cutting-edge insights and valuable resources.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *