In Reynolds Elec. etc. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1966) 65 Cal. 2d 429, the Nevada-based employer argued that application of California, as opposed to Nevada, workers' compensation law to a Californian injured in Nevada, would suggest that an employer must obtain insurance in every state from which it hires. The Supreme Court responded, "the judicial function does not encompass evaluating the wisdom of provisions of the Labor Code making California compensation laws applicable to contracts of hire consummated in this state. This is a problem which, if significant, should more appropriately be addressed to the Legislature." ( Id. at pp. 437-438.)