A California appellate court has stopped the runner on Travelers Indemnity Company’s attempt to shift a workers’ compensation coverage dispute into arbitration, sending the matter back for further review. The May 28, 2025, decision comes from the Fourth Appellate District and centers on a cumulative injury claim filed by George Zeber, a former New York Yankees player who says he was injured during his employment from 1968 to 1978.

Zeber filed his claim in 2017, alleging cumulative trauma from his professional baseball career. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found the injury compensable but deferred key issues, including a final award and the question of insurance coverage. It also ordered that the insurance coverage dispute be resolved through mandatory arbitration under Labor Code section 5275(a)(1).

Travelers Indemnity challenged that move, arguing that mandatory arbitration under section 5275 only applies when the “date of injury” is on or after January 1, 1990. Since Zeber’s employment ended in 1978, Travelers claimed that arbitration was not required.

The appellate court agreed, finding that no proper determination had been made on the date of injury under section 5412 of the Labor Code. That section defines the “date of injury” for cumulative trauma claims as the date on which the employee first suffered disability and either knew, or should have known, that the disability was caused by the employment.

While the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) acknowledged that Zeber became aware of his right to file a workers’ compensation claim around 2017—after discussions with his son, who had filed a similar claim—there was no finding as to when Zeber became aware that his disability was caused by his employment. Without that key factual detail, the court held that mandatory arbitration could not proceed.

The court annulled the WCAB’s arbitration order and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the date of injury under section 5412. The court emphasized that it was precluded by statute from making factual findings and that it was within the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s (WCAB) authority to resolve the issue based on the certified record.

The ruling does not touch on the merits of the insurance coverage dispute itself or the terms of any policy. Rather, it turns on whether the procedural conditions for mandatory arbitration have been met—specifically, the legally defined date of injury.

The matter remains unresolved. It returns to the WCAB for further fact-finding. For insurers, the decision highlights the importance of statutory timelines in legacy workers’ compensation claims and the procedural steps that must be made before arbitration is allowed.