The Fumble of California SB 795: Where Sport and Jurisdictional Liability Intersect
by S. Parker
California has long been known for its expansive workers’ compensation system, particularly when it comes to cumulative trauma claims. In early 2026, lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 795 (SB 795), a proposal that aimed to significantly reshape how professional athletes access those benefits. While the bill ultimately stalled, its trajectory offers important insight into how states may rethink jurisdictional exposure and employer liability going forward.
Background on SB795
At its core, SB 795 was designed to limit professional athletes’ ability to file workers’ compensation claims in California, especially for cumulative injuries or conditions that develop over time from repetitive stress rather than a single incident.
The bill proposed a jurisdictional threshold – athletes would be excluded from California’s workers’ compensation system if they did not perform work explicitly in California or spent less than 20% of their duty days in the state over the last 365 days of their career.
SB 795 advanced quickly at first. It passed the California State Senate unanimously on January 27, 2026, signaling strong initial support.
However, momentum slowed in the Assembly after amendments in May 2026 and a postponed committee hearing. Ultimately, the bill was pulled from consideration and did not proceed to a final vote, effectively halting its progress, at least for now.
Potential Impact of SB 795
Because SB 795 aimed to limit access to California’s workers’ compensation system for athletes with minimal in-state exposure, and it would have reduced the number of claims filed in California overall. California is a high-cost medical jurisdiction, which typically drives larger Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) allocations. If claims were to shift to other states with lower medical costs, or different compensability standards, MSA values may decrease materially and, in some cases, claims might not be compensable at all.
SB 795 could have reduced both the frequency and size of MSAs simply by shifting where claims are filed, or whether they were filed at all.
The bill proposed assigning liability primarily to the last California-based employer or the last employer to engage the athlete in California. For MSA planning, this creates complexity as when determining which claim jurisdiction governs future medical exposure becomes less straightforward, allocation assumptions (treatment guidelines, fee schedules, life expectancy inputs) must align with the appropriate state, not automatically California, and settlement teams would need to evaluate multi-jurisdictional exposure more rigorously.
Although SB 795 was shelved, similar efforts have surfaced before — and likely will again.
Employers should expect continued legislative activity aimed at refining workers’ compensation exposure in specialized industries. For organizations with complex claims portfolios, the takeaway is not just about California, but rather preparedness. By modeling jurisdictional scenarios early, and aligning legal, clinical, and MSA strategies, organizations can stay ahead of legislative developments that can shift exposure overnight.
If you have questions about this bill, or any other Medicare Secondary Payer issues, please contact us at [email protected].