Unpublished Cases Review Committee Petitions for Publication of the Court of Appeal Decision in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. WCAB (Zeber)

On May 7, 2025, the California Court of Appeal (4^th District) issued its opinion in the matter of Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bd. (Zeber), 111 Cal. App. 5^th 568.   Originally, the Court of Appeal ordered that the case was not to be published.   

George Zeber was a professional baseball player for the New York Yankees who filed a workers’ compensation claim alleging a cumulative injury from 1968 through 1978.  Petitioner Travelers disputed coverage for the Yankees during this period.  

At the trial level, the trial judge found a compensable injury that was not barred by the statute of limitations.  On a petition for reconsideration, the award was affirmed in all respects except the WCAB  amended the findings to indicate that the issue of insurance coverage was deferred to mandatory arbitration.  Travelers filed a petition for writ of review, initially contending that mandatory arbitration could only be ordered for dates of injury following January 1, 1994, but later concurring with the WCAB that it could only be ordered for dates of injury following January 1, 1990.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the WCAB’s interpretation of Labor Code section 5275 that mandatory arbitration could only be ordered for dates of injury following January 1, 1990.  However, because the workers’ compensation judge never made a factual finding as to the correct date of injury under Labor Code section 5412, the WCAB’s decision was annulled and the case was remanded for further proceedings, including a factual determination regarding the date of injury.

The Unpublished Cases Review Committee reviews unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeal which are of importance to the workers’ compensation community and decides whether a petition seeking an order to publish the opinion is appropriate.  A panel of retired judges and practitioners who serve on the Unpublished Cases Review Committee unanimously voted in favor of petitioning the Court of Appeal for an order certifying publication of the Zeber opinion.  Committee co-chairs, Kenneth Sheppard and Scott Silberman, petitioned the Court explaining how the opinion satisfies various sections of California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1105, which sets forth the requirements for publication.   The petition included the following supporting publication:

This decision satisfies subsection (3) because it modifies, explains, or criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule of law. Similarly, it satisfies subsection (8) because it invokes a previously overlooked rule of law or reaffirms a principle of law not applied in a recently reported decision. Specifically, this decision makes clear that insurance coverage issues subject to mandatory arbitration under Labor Code section 5275 only apply to injuries occurring on or after January 1, 1990. Furthermore, the decision articulates that when defining issues subject to mandatory arbitration, the “date of injury” must be determined pursuant to section 5412.

Additionally, this decision satisfies subsection (6) because it involves a legal issue of continuing public interest. Specifically, the legal issues discussed in this decision are of continuing public interest because they resolve potential ambiguities in the interpretation of Labor Code section 5275. When there is an insurance coverage dispute, an injured worker is likely not receiving benefits while the dispute remains unresolved. Litigation about the meaning and correct procedure to be followed under section 5275 further delays the resolution of the insurance coverage issue, thus depriving the injured worker of benefits for an even longer period of time. This decision clarifies these issues, furthering the Constitution’s mandate to accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character. Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.

Finally, this decision satisfies subsection (4) because it advances a new interpretation, clarification, criticism, or construction of a provision of a statute. Specifically, this decision explicitly rejected the portion of the holding in Hardy v. New Orleans Saints 2014 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. Lexis 350 which interpreted Labor Code section 5275 as applying to dates of injury after January 1, 1994. Rather, this decision clarifies that section 5275 applies only to dates of injury after January 1, 1990.

On May 28, 2025, the Court issued an order certifying the decision for publication. 

FN:  For additional case information history, please refer to the following citations:  Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, February 9, 2023 Vacated and Remanded, Civil No. G061960; Reporter 88 Cal. Comp. Cases 489/2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 11, 2023 LX 41898, Subsequent History:  Remanded by Decision reached on appeal by Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 111 Cal. App. 5^th 568, 2025 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2859 (May 7, 2025).