Atlanta Falcons v. WCAB Limits California Claims by Out-of-State Pro Athletes

In Atlanta Falcons v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 (2025), the California Court of Appeal clarified when an out-of-state professional athlete and team are exempt from California workers’ compensation law.

The court held that one early California contract does not automatically preserve a career-long cumulative-injury claim here.

Read the published opinion on CourtListener.

A 15-Year NFL Career

Wayne Gandy played 15 NFL seasons from 1994 through 2009. He began with the Los Angeles Rams under a contract signed in California, continued with the St. Louis Rams, and later played for Pittsburgh, New Orleans, and Atlanta. Six years after retiring, he filed a California cumulative-injury claim involving multiple body parts.

Limited Later California Work

During the final decade of his career, Gandy played eight California games. During the 365 days before his last California game for Atlanta, his duty days included four games and at least 250 practice days; only one game and no practices occurred in California. Atlanta supplied qualifying out-of-state workers’ compensation coverage.

The WCJ Found an Exemption

The WCJ found Atlanta exempt under Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d). The WCAB rescinded, reasoning that Gandy’s original California contract supplied jurisdiction despite the athlete-specific exemptions.

Subdivision (c) Covered Atlanta

The Fourth District held that Atlanta satisfied subdivision (c). Gandy was temporarily in California because fewer than 20 percent of his relevant duty days occurred here, and qualifying coverage applied under another state’s law.

Subdivision (d) Looks at the Career

When all final-year employers are exempt, California coverage remains only if the athlete satisfies both statutory conditions: at least two California-team seasons or 20 percent of career duty days in California or for California teams, and fewer than seven seasons with non-California teams. Gandy failed both. He had one California season, less than 20 percent qualifying duty days, and more than seven non-California seasons.

One California Contract Was Not Enough

The court rejected the WCAB’s rule because it would make subdivision (d) largely superfluous. The Legislature adopted the later, more specific provisions to limit claims by out-of-state athletes while preserving access for athletes with defined, substantial California contacts.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court annulled the WCAB decision only as to Atlanta. It did not decide liability of the Steelers or Saints, limitations, contractual forum provisions, or due process. A later modification clarified that Atlanta’s writ costs were recoverable from Gandy, not the WCAB, without changing the judgment.

Practical Significance

These cases remain fact-specific. Athletes should preserve contracts, team assignments, game and practice schedules, travel records, and insurance policies. Small differences in duty days, seasons, or final-year employment may change the result.

The California Supreme Court denied review and denied depublication in February 2026. The modified opinion remains published and precedential statewide.