Reed Johnson: The Last Team Had to Be Joined Before the Whole Claim Could Be Ruled Exempt

A pro athlete’s cumulative-injury claim should not be ruled exempt from California’s workers’ compensation system because his last employer is exempt while that employer has never been made a party, at least where nothing prevents joining it. In Reed Johnson v. L.A. Dodgers, No. ADJ20427011 (WCAB Oct. 23, 2026), the Appeals Board rescinded such a ruling and sent the case back to join the Washington Nationals, leaving the exemption itself to be decided again.

Johnson, a retired baseball player, claimed that play from 1999 to 2016 injured him cumulatively, and named only the Dodgers, one of six teams (seven stints, two with the Cubs) that the parties stipulated employed him in that period. The decision comes from a three-member panel of the Board. Its answer concerns who must be in the case before the exemption question is decided.

A career-long claim filed against one team

Johnson’s application alleged cumulative injury to multiple body parts from July 15, 1999 to April 3, 2016, and listed the Dodgers as the only employer. At the April 29, 2026 trial, the parties nonetheless stipulated to seven employments in that period: the Blue Jays, Cubs, Dodgers (2010), Cubs again, Braves, Marlins and, last, the Nationals, whose stipulated employment ended April 1, 2016. The application was never amended, and no other team was ever joined.

The parties also stipulated that Johnson signed his first contract in California but no other contract here, and that he did not spend 20 percent or more of his duty days in California in his final year. The issues were jurisdiction and the athlete exemptions in Labor Code section 3600.5(c) and (d). Johnson objected to Exhibit B, the teams’ insurance policies, for lack of foundation and authentication.

The July 22, 2026 Findings and Order found that Johnson and the Nationals satisfied section 3600.5, admitted Exhibit B as the Ace American policy issued for the Nationals, and ordered “that Applicant take nothing on his claim herein.” Johnson sought reconsideration on two grounds: the insurance documents should not have been admitted, and even if the Nationals were exempt, the Dodgers could still be held liable. The judge recommended denial.

The athlete exemption turns on the final year

Section 3600.5(c) exempts an athlete hired outside California, and that employer, from California’s system for cumulative injury while the athlete is only temporarily working here, if another state’s coverage carried by the employer covers the California work. “Temporarily” means fewer than 20 percent of duty days in California during the 365 days before the athlete’s last day of work here for that employer.

Section 3600.5(d) then exempts the whole cumulative claim when all of the athlete’s employers in the last year of work are exempt, unless the athlete meets both career tests: two or more seasons for California-based teams or 20 percent of career duty days in California or for California teams, and fewer than seven seasons for teams based elsewhere.

The Board had once held that these subdivisions did not apply when any employer in the injury period hired the athlete in California. The Board explained that the Court of Appeal disagreed in Atlanta Falcons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268: they apply unless the employer claiming the subdivision (c) exemption hired the athlete here. Under Gandy, then, Johnson’s first California contract did not by itself end the inquiry.

The exemption finding concerned a team that was not a party

Section 5500.5 generally limits liability for cumulative injury to the employers during the one year before the earlier of the section 5412 injury date or the last day of injurious exposure. The Nationals were the only team that employed Johnson during his last year. The Board therefore observed that section 5500.5 would appear likely to place liability on the Nationals and spare the other teams, including the Dodgers, the only team actually in the case.

That left an order declaring a claim exempt based on findings about an employer that was never joined but would have been the liable employer. Neither party raised the joinder problem. The Board addressed it anyway: “It is borderline axiomatic that an entity must be joined to the litigation as a party before a judgement can be rendered for or against it.” It relied on In re Wren (1957) 48 Cal.2d 159, 163, and on section 5500.5(b), which requires the application to list the employers in the liability period and directs the Board to join an additional employer that appears to be a proper party. That the Nationals appeared to share an insurer with the Dodgers did not remove the need to join the employer that would actually be liable.

The Board required joinder even though the ruling favored the Nationals

The Board recognized why the Dodgers wanted to assert the Nationals’ exemption: if the last team is exempt, the whole claim may be exempt under subdivision (d). It accepted that such a vicarious assertion may be appropriate in limited circumstances, for example where there is no personal jurisdiction over the final employer. But nothing in this record showed any obstacle to joining the Nationals.

The Board tested the point with the opposite result. Had the judge found the Nationals not exempt, they would have had to be joined as the presumptively liable employer, and they could fairly object that the question had been decided against them in their absence. A favorable result did not cure the problem that their rights and liabilities were assessed without them. The Board acknowledged the delay, especially with an apparently shared insurer, but held: “Substantial justice must be built upon the foundation of due process, and due process requires that a necessary party be joined before its rights are adjudicated.”

What the judge must decide on remand

The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the July 22, 2026 Findings and Order and returned the matter to the trial level. The judge must join the Nationals. The Nationals may then assert the subdivision (c) exemption with their own arguments and evidence. If they prove it, the judge should then decide whether the entire claim is exempt under subdivision (d).

The Board did not rule on the insurance-document objection, expecting it to ease once the Nationals offer their own coverage evidence. In a footnote it called Johnson’s reliance on Evidence Code section 1401 inapposite because Labor Code section 5708 frees these hearings from formal evidence rules.

What the decision means for multi-employer claims

In our reading, the lesson reaches beyond sports. In a multi-employer cumulative-injury case, the employers section 5500.5 makes liable are generally those in the final-year window, which may not include the employer named on the application. A defense that depends on a final-year employer’s status should be decided with that employer in the case, absent a real obstacle such as no personal jurisdiction. For athletes, records of duty days, seasons, contracts and each final-year team’s coverage stay central. For a worker outside sports, our guide to naming employers in a multi-job cumulative injury explains the election and joinder rules.