Keenan & Associates

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 8
• Anaheim 7
• Riverside 7
• Lodi 3
• Los Angeles 3
• Santa Ana 3
• Fresno 2
• Long Beach 2
• Marina del Rey 2
• Oakland 2
• Oxnard 2
• Pomona 2

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 26 for the defense
• 19 for the applicant
• 8 returned for more record

Counted over 49 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ19640948 · 2026-05-19 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.71. Parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is "one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant...." (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the Supreme Court of California in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, "the commission...must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, -- in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process of law." (Id. at p. 577.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584].) Indeed: Although the California Constitution states that a goal of workers' compensation proceedings is to "accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character...." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4), the right to due process is paramount to the goal of conducting workers' compensation proceedings expeditiously. We therefore conclude that denial of a fair trial to a [party] is reversible per se.

  Applicant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine PQME Dr. Schmitz on a significant supplemental report, which denied her a fair trial and due process, warranting reconsideration and further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ20169304 · 2026-04-20 · Redding District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11evidence. PQME Dr. Taylor discusses many contributing factors he believes have a bearing on the cause of applicant's claimed injury to provide percentages of causation, but PQME Dr. Taylor does not provide the reasoning linking the factors to the injury. This defect is not cured by referring to clinical expertise and years of training. Further, PQME Dr. Taylor provided opinions based on an incomplete record and appears to have relied on an incorrect history. In summary, PQME Dr. Taylor's opinions are not substantial evidence. (Hegglin, supra, pp. 169-170.)

  PQME Dr. Taylor's opinions on causation were found not to be substantial medical evidence due to lack of reasoning, incomplete record, and incorrect history; therefore, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ18364465 · 2026-01-16 · Lodi District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Applicant was on modified duty, but he was told he was unable to work at all. His retirement was a function of his industrial injury, and not a result of any intention not to work. Further, in contrast to the evidentiary record in Sera, the present case establishes that applicant was medically unable to work, or look for work, immediately after his retirement. Dr. Walter, the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), indicated in his April 11, 2024 report that applicant was temporarily totally disabled (TTD) from July 14, 2023 forward, so medical expert opinion supports applicant's TTD status. Accordingly, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration of the findings and award of temporary disability.

  Applicant's retirement was due to his industrial injury and not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market; medical evidence and applicant's credible testimony support entitlement to temporary disability benefits after retirement.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ1022470 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the decisions in ADJ3880940 and ADJ4230890, and substitute new decisions that find that CIGA and Desert have joint and several liability and order that Desert is to administer applicant's further medical treatment, and defer the issue of new and further disability in ADJ4230890. We make no other changes to any of the other decisions.

  The Board deferred the issue of new and further disability because the record was inadequate to determine whether the applicant sustained new and further disability and whether a petition to reopen was filed, and CIGA waived the issue by not raising it earlier.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10413544 · 2025-12-09 · Fresno District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Turning now to the merits of the Petition, in Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.), the Appeals Board held that if there is substantial medical evidence that two or more impairments have a synergistic effect which causes the resulting impairment to be greater than that reflected through use of the CVC, the impairments should be added for purposes of accuracy. In Kite, the applicant underwent bilateral hip replacement surgeries and the orthopedic QME opined that due to a "synergistic effect of the injury to the same body parts bilaterally versus body parts from different regions of the body," "the best way to combine the impairments to the right and left hips would be to add them versus using the combined values chart, which would result in a lower whole person impairment." (Id. at p. 5.) Accordingly, the WCJ in Kite found that the impairment for the applicant's hips should be added rather than combined.

  Applicant successfully rebutted the CVC by showing synergistic effects on ADLs, supporting use of the addition method for impairment rating.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10961264 · 2025-11-07 · Anaheim District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, applicant's petition to strike Dr. Patchett's reporting did not raise the issue of section 4628 compliance, nor was section 4628 listed as a trial issue in the June 18, 2024 pretrial conference statement. (Petition to Strike, served May 15, 2024; Pre-trial Conference Statement, filed June 18, 2024.) Although the September 14, 2024 minutes of hearing indicate that one of the issues for trial was "Applicant's petition to strike the medical reports of Dr. Ross and Dr. Patchett," the minutes did not state, specifically, that the WCJ would be make that determination pursuant to section 4628. (Corrected Minutes of Hearing, served September 19, 2024; see also, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(c)(3) [MOH must include "the issues and matters in controversy"].) Compliance with section 4628 was raised, for the first time, in the Opinion on Decision issued on December 2, 2024. (Opinion, at pp. 4-6.) Thus, there was no notice to any party that section 4628 would be considered by the WCJ or that it would be relied upon by the WCJ as the basis for finding Dr. Patchett's reporting inadmissible. Dr. Patchett, specifically, was not provided with notice that his reporting could be stricken pursuant to section 4628, and as a result, had no opportunity to be heard on that issue before the order striking his reporting issued.

  The WCJ struck Dr. Patchett's report for noncompliance with section 4628 without providing notice or opportunity to cure; Board found this violated due process and rescinded the order, remanding for proper notice and opportunity to cure.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ18356537 · 2025-05-12 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.6The WCJ notes that it would not have been possible for LAUSD to alleviate the danger if the manner in which that occurs is actual repairs to the property because that is the responsibility of the City of Los Alamitos. While LAUSD did report the damaged area to the City of Los Alamitos well in advance of the date of injury, they did not provide a warning to their employees. However, following review of the evidence, including the condition of the property on the date of injury, as well as testimony, any concurrent negligence on the part of LAUSD is not to a degree greater than a de minimis amount.

  The WCJ found employer's concurrent negligence was not greater than de minimis, thus defendant entitled to credit. The WCAB granted reconsideration for further review but did not overturn this finding yet.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11236772 · 2025-04-04 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have reviewed the record in this matter, the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the Answer, as well as the contents of the Report. For the reasons set forth below, we grant reconsideration in order to amend the WCJ's decision to find that applicant sustained a specific injury AOE/COE to her head and right upper extremity only on June 24, 2015 in ADJ11236772 (Findings of Fact no. 1, Order), and to include findings of fact that as a result of her specific injury applicant did not suffer disability and does not require any future medical care. Otherwise, we affirm the WCJ's decision as to applicant's cumulative injury in ADJ11236942.

  The Appeals Board found substantial evidence to support a specific injury on June 24, 2015 to the head and right upper extremity, based on stipulations and medical records, but no disability or future medical care was supported.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10305680 · 2024-10-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Applying these principles to the current matter, applicant did not file her petition to reopen within five years of the date of injury. The issue we face on appeal is only whether applicant timely filed her petition to reopen and not if she claimed a new industrial injury. Therefore, we will not disturb the WCJ's decision that applicant's petition to reopen was untimely.

  Applicant's petition to reopen was filed more than five years after the last date of industrial exposure in 2016, making it untimely under Labor Code section 5410.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16093500 · 2024-08-15 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3We further note that "notwithstanding whatever an employer does (or does not do)" to contest medical treatment, applicant has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the treatment in question is medically reasonable and necessary. (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 230, 242 [73 Cal.Comp.Cases 981], citing Lab. Code, § 3202.5 & 4600.) In addition, we note that section 4600 "consistently has been interpreted to require the employer to pay for all medical treatment once it has been established that an industrial injury contributed to an employee's need for it." (See Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249, 1261 [82 Cal.Comp.Cases 679], italics added, string citations2 and internal quotations omitted; South Coast Framing, supra, 61 Cal.4th 291 [death benefits upheld where drugs prescribed to treat industrial injury contributed to employee's death]; Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 165 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566] [employee suffering from pre-existing condition later disabled by industrial injury was entitled to treatment even for a non-industrial condition that was required to cure or relieve effects of industrial injury].)

  The Board found that applicant is entitled to medical treatment for the injury, including treatment for the left trigger ring finger as recommended by the QME Dr. Gonzalez, and that causation is separate from the parts needing treatment.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11525409 · 2024-04-19 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial injury on August 18, 2017, and that the injury was presumed industrial pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5402(b). The WCJ further sustained applicant's objection to the QME's reporting and excluded it from coming into evidence.

  The presumption of compensability was affirmed because the defendant failed to rebut it with timely evidence, and the QME reports were excluded from evidence due to procedural issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11373743 · 2024-01-24 · Santa Ana District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.22Based on the medical reporting and the opinions of the regularly appointed physician, Dr. Davis, the applicant's industrial injury, the aggravation of her pre-existing psychological condition, was predominantly caused, 80%, by the actual events of her employment with the defendant.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial psychological injury predominantly caused (80%) by actual events of employment, supported by medical opinion of Dr. Davis and legal standards requiring predominant causation by work events.

  Official decision · page 22 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• KEENAN & ASSOCIATES
• Keenan & Associates
• KEENAN AND ASSOCIATES
• KEENAN ASSOCIATES
• Keenan Associates
• KEENAN ASSOCIATES TORRANCE
• Keenan and Associates

Is this your company and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this claims administrator is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.