Bentley & More

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Anaheim 9
• Santa Ana 6
• San Bernardino 2
• Riverside 1
• Sacramento 1

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 firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 11 for the applicant
• 7 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 18 appealed decisions. Not this firm’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 firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ17825300 · 2025-09-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on June 18, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a furniture salesperson on May 15, 2022, applicant sustained injury to the head, brain, and psyche, and claims to have sustained injury to the heart and sleep; (2) defendant did not meet its burden of proving that there is an approved and enforceable Medical Provider Network (MPN) that provides ancillary services; (3) there is no MPN control over the selection of the home care provider; (4) applicant has the right to select a family member as her home care provider; (5) there is a legitimate issue as to the enforceability of a MPN's control over the selection of a home care provider; (6) defendant's litigation of the issue of a MPN's control over the selection of a home care provider does not rise to the level of a bad faith action within the meaning of Labor Code section 5813; and (7) applicant is not entitled to attorney fees pursuant to Labor Code section 5813.

  The WCJ found no enforceable MPN providing ancillary services, so defendant cannot assert MPN control over home care provider selection. Applicant's right to select a family member as home care provider was supported by evidence including testimony and medical authorization.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16748364 · 2025-06-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2The WCJ's Findings and Order (F&O) finds that "[a]pplicant has demonstrated his spouse is capable of providing overnight attendant care." (F&O, Finding of Fact No. 2.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision reviews the medical and testimonial evidence, and notes that applicant's spouse has provided both primary and secondary support to applicant since applicant returned home from the hospital in March, 2023. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 4.) Applicant's spouse currently provides assistance with applicant's activities of daily living (ADLs) from early in the morning until the caregiver arrives at 7:00AM. During the day, applicant's spouse provides

  The WCJ found credible evidence that applicant's spouse has been providing appropriate overnight care since March 2023 and is capable of continuing to do so; the Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's findings and denied reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13610807 · 2025-02-03 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3(1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313], emphasis added.) As discussed by the WCJ, applicant met her burden of proving injury AOE/COE, based in part on the opinions of panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) in cardiology Stuart Fischer, M.D. (Exhibits 1A - 1G) and panel QME in neurology Pedram Navab, M.D. (Exhibits 2A - 2H). Although the WCJ and both QMEs refer to "cardiac arrest" we note that this is not a body part. Additionally, we note that it is axiomatic that an injury must be to a body part and, as such, any finding of injury AOE/COE must identify at least one body part. (See Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 5401(a); Clark, supra, at 297-298.) Therefore we will amend Findings of Fact No. 1 and No. 2 to find that applicant sustained injury to her heart.

  The WCJ and QMEs Fischer and Navab provided substantial medical evidence that applicant's sudden cardiac arrest was industrially related, meeting the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and reasonable probability standard.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ15315840 · 2024-02-12 · San Bernardino District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4We turn first to applicant's contention that the WCJ erroneously failed to find that

  The WCJ misconstrued the stipulation regarding LVN treatment duration and failed to find defendant's obligation to provide home care and LVN treatments after the stipulated period; the record lacks evidence on communication and authorization of treatments before the stipulation; further record development is needed to determine defendant's obligation and compliance with legal standards.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12933120 · 2023-03-09 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10In summary, we conclude that the record supports the WCJ's determination that applicant has sustained permanent and total disability arising out of the industrial medical treatment she received following her admitted injury. We concur with the WCJ that under the principles espoused in Hikida, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at 1260, applicant's disability is not subject to apportionment. Additionally, we agree with the WCJ that Dr. Miller appropriately explicated the rationale for adding, rather than combing, applicant's pain and dermatology-related impairments pursuant to the analysis in Kite, supra, 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213. We also agree that the reporting of applicant's vocational expert, which reviews the deposition testimony of QME Dr. Miller and QME Dr. Sofen, is the more convincing and persuasive.

  Medical evidence from Drs. Chang and Miller supported permanent total disability due to industrial injury and sequelae of medical treatment; apportionment was not applicable under Hikida; additive approach to impairment was justified under Kite due to synergistic effect of multiple industrial conditions.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ12190515 · 2022-08-09 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3There was no evidence offered that this report [the driving evaluation] was ever served on Defendants or reviewed by Dr. Patterson. As noted in the non- certification, along with the driving evaluation psychological issues, treatment plan and medical necessity were also required to complete the UR. It was not just a matter of the Applicant passing a driving evaluation. The request for additional information was valid. The driving evaluation on its own without medical review was not complete to support medical necessity and the other information requested was not provided. In light of that, the utilization review was timely. (Report, p. 3.)

  The utilization review was timely because the required supporting documentation, including the driving evaluation and other medical necessity information, was not provided; applicant is not entitled to a modified vehicle at this time but may request again with proper documentation.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9900622 · 2022-07-08 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The parties submitted a total of 39 exhibits which included multiple medical reports, 4 Cross- examination transcripts, 10 vocational expert reports, and medical reporting from 6 different specialties. The Court reviewed each page of the evidence and outlined the multiple findings from the various doctors in describing the basis for the finding that the applicant was entitled to a finding of 100% total permanent disability.

  The WCJ found applicant 100% totally permanently disabled based on the persuasive vocational expert opinion that applicant was not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and incapable of employment, and the combined medical evidence rated at 98% disability. The WCAB adopted this reasoning and found no error.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10680599 · 2021-04-27 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant, born 11/26, 1979, while employed on 01/21/2016 as a furniture worker at Los Angeles, California by Elite Rico Moving and Delivery, Inc., then insured by Transguard Insurance Company of America, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to left shoulder, left thumb, cervical spine, right wrist, bilateral elbows, head, face and right knee. The primary issues in dispute are parts of body injured, permanent disability, apportionment, Labor Code section 4660.1(c) and need for further medical treatment.

  The WCJ found applicant sustained injury to psyche and traumatic brain injury and that entitlement to increased permanent impairment ratings for psyche and traumatic brain injury is not barred by Labor Code section 4660.1(c) (1). The issues of sexual dysfunction injury, permanent disability, and apportionment were deferred for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10298755 · 2026-06-01 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on April 1, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, May 31, 2026. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, June 1, 2026. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)1. This decision is issued by or on Monday, June 1, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).

  The Appeals Board found the Petition for Reconsideration was timely filed and granted it to allow further review of the merits and the entire record, deferring final decision.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ18150681 · 2025-12-15 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Following the submission of the WCJ's Report on November 7, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation on November 12, 2025 stating:

  The parties stipulated that the Compromise and Release agreement was not enforceable and void because the applicant died before defendant signed it, providing good cause to set aside the order approving the C&R.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ18291751 · 2025-01-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on February 1, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, leading to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7760148 · 2024-08-27 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on June 14, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition for reconsideration, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

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

• BENTLEY & MORE
• BENTLEY & MORE LLP
• BENTLEY & MORE, LLP
• Bentley & More
• Bentley & More, LLP
• Bentley & More LLP
• Bentley More

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