Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Carroll Wesley: When an Out-of-State Team Was Exempt From California Compensation Law

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 23, 2026 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Carroll v. Cincinnati Bengals, No. ADJ2295331 (WCAB June 18, 2013) (en banc).

A brief work trip to California does not always create a California compensation remedy. In this 2013 en banc decision, the WCAB dismissed the Cincinnati Bengals because the team proved the temporary-work exemption in Labor Code section 3600.5(b). The decisive issue was not simply that Wesley Carroll played only one California game: The Bengals also proved qualifying Ohio coverage and statutory reciprocity.

The decision illustrates why a coverage stipulation and actual coverage evidence are different. It also separates insurance in force when the work occurred from whether the worker can still file a timely claim years later.

A professional football player claimed cumulative injury

Carroll’s contract with the New Orleans Saints was made outside California and later assigned to the Bengals. His stipulated Bengals employment ran from September 1, 1993, to April 12, 1994. He came to California for about two days and one game in December 1993; the substantial majority of his Bengals duties, including training and practice, occurred in Ohio. Carroll filed his California cumulative-injury claim in 2006.

The judge awarded benefits against both teams. The Bengals challenged the ruling, but the Saints did not seek reconsideration. That distinction limited the en banc decision: It addressed the Bengals’ employment, not a blanket dismissal of Carroll’s entire career claim. Carroll, slip opinion, pages 1–4, 7.

Section 3600.5(b) has four elements

The Board required an out-of-state hire plus four conditions: Temporary California work; coverage under another state’s compensation or similar law covering that work; that state’s recognition of California’s extraterritorial provisions; and a reciprocal exemption for California employers and employees. A short visit alone does not establish the remaining conditions. Carroll, slip opinion, page 2.

The majority examined the actual trip and wider employment duties, rather than treating every scheduled away game as regular California employment. It also rejected payment of California income tax as a separate ground requiring the WCAB to decide the compensation claim. Tax obligations and workers’ compensation jurisdiction answer different questions. Carroll, slip opinion, pages 7–11.

The Bengals proved the statutory prerequisites

An earlier panel had returned the case for more evidence because the parties’ stipulation to self-insurance was insufficient to establish lawful Ohio self-insurance with extraterritorial coverage. The Bengals then supplied the Ohio certificate covering August 1993 through August 1994, agency letters confirming their status and out-of-state coverage, and the relevant Ohio statute. The Board considered that full submission. It did not hold that every employer’s statement “we are self-insured” proves the exemption. Carroll, slip opinion, pages 4–5, 12–14.

The certificate was prima facie evidence under section 3600.5(b), meaning evidence sufficient to establish coverage unless adequately rebutted; the Board did not make that certificate the only possible proof. Ohio’s self-insurance rules and agency explanations showed coverage for Carroll’s temporary California work. Carroll, slip opinion, pages 12–13.

Carroll argued that Ohio’s limitations period had expired, leaving him without a present remedy there. The majority distinguished that filing problem from the coverage requirement: The question was whether the Bengals had furnished qualifying coverage when he worked in California in 1993. Expiration of a later filing period did not erase the coverage then in force. This is a reason to review possible forums and their deadlines promptly, not a promise that another state will accept a late claim. Carroll, slip opinion, pages 15–16.

Commissioner Sweeney dissented. She read temporary presence more narrowly in the context of regular California work and cumulative-injury allocation, and questioned coverage that might leave the worker without a remedy. Those concerns explain the stakes, but they were not the majority’s holding. Carroll, dissent, pages 21–32.

Disposition

The WCAB rescinded the judge’s January 24, 2011 decision, dismissed the Bengals as a defendant and returned the case for further proceedings. It did not decide that the remaining teams owed a particular award. Carroll, slip opinion, pages 19–20.

En banc WCAB decisions bind WCAB panels and workers’ compensation judges under WCAB Rule 10325. This is a 2013 application of subdivision (b), not a complete guide to today’s professional-athlete exemptions. Later athlete-specific provisions of section 3600.5 and the separate Atlanta Falcons analysis linked below must be considered when they apply.

Key takeaways

• Document how the contract was formed or assigned and what the worker actually did in California.
• Find evidence of lawful out-of-state coverage that actually extended to the California work, not just an undated coverage assertion.
• Read both states’ reciprocity provisions; a different benefit or filing procedure does not by itself resolve the exemption.
• Separate each employer’s exemption proof from the worker’s remaining claims and review each possible forum’s deadlines.

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