Date of Injury Questions Send Yankee’s Case Back to the Plate before WCJ

Case File

A retired second sacker for the Yankees learned that he might be able to file a workers' compensation claim long after his playing days hand ended, but did his case have to go to arbitration over insurance coverage? Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Travelers Indemnity Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, No. G064030 (Cal. Ct. App. 05/07/25)

What Happened

Former New York Yankees player George Zeber alleged that he sustained a cumulative trauma injury while employed for the team between 1968 and 1978,

The workers' compensation judge found that Zeber sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment but deferred any finding of permanent disability, apportionment, or attorney fees pending development of the medical record.

The WCJ also found that the one-year limitations period from "the date of injury" set forth under California law did not preclude Zeber's claim. The WCJ noted that "it has long been held that an injured worker is not to be penalized for failing to immediately comprehend the definition of a continuous traumatic injury or his right to pursue a workers' compensation claim absent notification by his employer."

Additionally, the WCJ found that Zeber did not become aware of his right to file a workers' compensation claim until 2017 or 2018, when Zeber's son, also a professional athlete, filed his own workers' compensation claim. Thus, without appropriate notice, Zeber made a successful case before the WCJ to toll the statute of limitations.

The Yankees' carrier filed a petition for reconsideration, arguing that the team failed to prove the existence of workers' compensation from 1977 to 1978 and that Zeber's submitted medical reports were not substantial medical evidence.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board amended the WCJ's decision to defer the issue of insurance coverage, which was subject to mandatory arbitration.

The carrier appealed to court, arguing that the WCAB erred in deferring the issue of insurance coverage to mandatory arbitration because mandatory arbitration under California law applied only to injuries occurring on or after Jan. 1, 1994.

The court vacated the WCAB's decision and remanded. On remand, the WCAB reinstated and affirmed its decision but rescinded and deleted the award pending further proceedings and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings on mandatory arbitration of insurance coverage.

The carrier petitioned the court for review.

Rule of Law

Statutory language in California requires that certain issues be submitted for mandatory arbitration and other issues may be submitted for arbitration regardless of the date of injury, and the date of injury limits when an issue is subject to mandatory arbitration.

What the California Court of Appeals Said

The court rejected Zeber's contention that the WCJ had authority to order the insurance coverage arbitration, noting the triggering date set forth in the statute.

Regarding the date of injury, the court noted that because Zeber's injury was a cumulative injury, the date of injury under California law was when Zeber knew or reasonably should have known that his disability was caused by his employment with the Yankees.

The court pointed out that the WCJ never made a finding of the date of injury and, as a result, the WCAB acted in excess of its authority to send the insurance coverage dispute to mandatory arbitration.

The court explained that it could not make its factual determination of the date of injury based on the certified record.

Verdict: The court annulled the WCAB's decision and remanded for further proceedings, including for a factual determination of the "date of injury" under California law.

Takeaway

In California, the "date of injury" is the date of the occurrence of a disability and the worker's knowledge "that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment."

Share This Article: