Barthel: Even Super Bowl Winners May Lose in Comp

Wednesday, February 18, 2026 | 0

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 LX.

Donald R. Barthel

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 his career, file a CT in California running from the day he became a player to the last time he hung up his cleats.

If you’ve watched the NFL, you have a pretty good idea how injured players are at the end of their careers. 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, he signed his contract in Florida and never played for any team other than the Dolphins, reaching California one or two times in his 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 Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to assert jurisdiction over a pro’s claim was extremely low, often described as requiring “minimum contacts.” If he played one game or practiced in California and/or signed his employment contract in California, this was considered sufficient minimum contact 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 his children, given his 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 that 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 combating the NFLPA on jurisdiction. Things have gotten significantly worse for players.

How tough is it 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 California 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, he may still be barred if he spent the vast majority of his career 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 his career in California, it doesn’t mean California covers potential claims forever. Players must meet strict “duty day” requirements (at least 20% of their time in the state) during their final year.

This is based on LC 3600.5(c), which says cumulative trauma claims are barred if:

• The athlete was hired outside of California.
• The athlete performed less than 20% of his duty days in California.

Don’t bet on it

Will all of this 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 toward 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 SB 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 update

As of the beginning of this year, the WCAB has begun dismissing even more claims from former players who lack jurisdiction if they 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 (one season in California), followed by long stints with the Pittsburgh Steelers, New Orleans Saints and Atlanta Falcons.

Before Gandy’s case hit the appellate courts, the WCAB 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 pleaded against the Falcons.

On appeal, the 4th District Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed.

Legal reasoning: the “two-season” and “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 his total career “duty days” working in California.

Why Gandy failed the test

• Insufficient California tenure. Gandy played only one season for a California-based team before the Rams moved to St. Louis.
• Minimal duty days. Over his 15-year career, he spent less than 20% of his working days in California.
• Non-California 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 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 (such as a rookie year) as a golden ticket to access California’s player-friendly workers’ compensation system years later — provided that the majority of his career was spent elsewhere.

Donald R. Barthel is a founding partner of Bradford and Barthel and is based in the firm’s Sacramento office. This entry from Bradford & Barthel's blog appears with permission.