Bober, Peterson & Koby, LLP

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 46
• Anaheim 11
• Van Nuys 5
• Marina del Rey 2
• San Francisco 2
• Long Beach 1
• Oxnard 1
• San Diego 1
• Santa 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.

• 40 for the applicant
• 15 for the defense
• 14 returned for more record

Counted over 65 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.

• ADJ21106251 · 2026-08-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Applicant claimed injury to his head, neck, back, spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hips, bilateral elbows, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, fingers, bilateral legs, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral feet, toes, internal, ENT/TMJ, neuro, psych, hearing, vision, sleep, and chronic pain while employed as a professional athlete by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers from April 29, 2007 to March 11, 2014, and the Washington Commanders, formerly known as the Washington Redskins, from March 12, 2014 to July 22, 2016. Defendant denies injury arising out of and in the course of employment and asserts the WCAB lacks subject matter jurisdiction over applicant’s claim. On February 25, 2026, the parties proceeded to trial on the sole issue of “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to Labor Code Sections 3600.5 and 5305.” (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (Minutes), dated February 25, 2026, at p. 2:16.) The WCJ heard testimony from applicant, and ordered the matter submitted for decision as of March 17, 2026. On May 14, 2026, the WCJ issued her Finding of Fact, determining that “[p]ursuant to Labor Code sections 5305 and 3600.5(a), this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Applicant’s claim and there is no exemption under 3600.5 (c) and (d).” (Finding of Fact No.

  The WCJ found credible applicant's testimony that he accepted employment offers while physically present in California, establishing California hiring and subject matter jurisdiction. The WCAB found no substantial evidence to overturn this credibility finding and affirmed jurisdiction.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13153374 · 2026-07-21 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10We are therefore authorized to exercise jurisdiction over his claims by sections 3600.5, subdivision (a) and/or 5305. 3 Accordingly, we will rescind the Findings of Fact and substitute a new order finding that applicant was hired in California for purposes of California workers’ compensation law and is eligible to bring both his specific and cumulative injury claims in this forum. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that the May 12, 2021 Joint Findings of Fact is RESCINDED, and the following order SUBSTITUTED therefore:

  The WCAB found that the applicant was hired in California for purposes of California workers’ compensation law based on binding precedent in Gandy, which holds that hire by a California-based team equates to hire in California, despite the contract being signed outside California. This established subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ8015380 · 2026-06-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.18For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the July 2, 2019 Findings and Order is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board deferred the rollback issue pending resolution of the section 3600.5(b) application at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2026-06-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3On March 23, 2026, we issued our Decision determining in relevant part that the filing of a workers' compensation claim on applicant's behalf in 2004 did not impart the knowledge required to establish a date of injury under section 5412 and commence the running of the statute of limitations under section 5405. We observed that per applicant's testimony, he had not initiated the 2004 claim and had never spoken to the filing attorney. We also observed that none of the claim filing documents and supporting documentation were signed by applicant and that evidence established that applicant's only involvement with the claim had been to instruct that it be withdrawn after learning of the filing. (Decision, at pp. 9-10.) We noted the first evidence establishing compensable disability arising out of industrial exposures was the May 4, 2021 medical reporting of orthopedic physician Dr. Einbund. We thus identified May 4, 2021 as the section 5412 date of injury, and concluded that because the instant claim was not filed more than one year from the date of injury, compensation was not barred under section 5405. (Id. at p. 11.)

  The WCAB found that the applicant's date of injury was May 4, 2021, based on medical evidence, and that the 2004 claim filing did not establish knowledge of compensable disability to trigger the statute of limitations under section 5405.

• ADJ19384154 · 2026-06-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3(See Defendants' Trial Brief, at p. 1 ["It does appear there is personal jurisdiction over the Cardinals based on applicant's testimony that he worked in California briefly for the Cardinals in 2012."].) The matter went to trial on three issues: (1) subject matter jurisdiction over the case; (2) personal jurisdiction over each defendant; and (3) whether any defendant is exempt according to section 3600.5. (Minutes of Hearing / Summary of Evidence ("MOH/SOE"), 9/9/2025, at p. 2.) Applicant was the sole witness to testify. (MOH/SOE, 11/10/2025, at pp. 2§ 11.) The WCJ issued his F&O on March 2, 2026, finding as relevant to this Petition (1) personal jurisdiction over the Dodgers, and (2) that section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) do not bar applicant's claim. The appended Opinion on Decision makes clear that the WCJ based his finding on the rationale that the Dodgers, a California-based employer, employed applicant during the last year of his professional career. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 6§ 8.) The F&O deferred the question of personal jurisdiction over the other defendants. (F&O, at p. 3.)

  The WCJ found personal jurisdiction over the Dodgers and that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) do not bar the claim; however, the Appeals Board found concerns about substantial evidence on hire and work in California by the Dodgers, requiring further review.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ15615310 · 2026-06-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.15Dr. Mack's apportionment opinion fails to satisfy the requirements as set forth in Escobedo6. His analysis relies primarily on the timing of Applicant's employment and the existence of pre-existing conditions, without explaining "how and why" those conditions are causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation. As explained in Escobedo, a medical opinion on apportionment must do more than state percentages. It must explain the causal relationship between the industrial injury and the permanent disability and separately explain how and why nonindustrial factors are responsible for a portion of that disability. Dr. Mack's reports do not provide this required analysis. The deficiency is also apparent with respect to the cubital tunnel syndrome. While Dr. Mack relates this condition to the elbow pathology, he does not explain why 50% of the resulting disability is attributable to nonindustrial factors or identify what those factors are. A mere medical relationship between conditions does not establish apportionment. Because Defendant bears the burden of proof on apportionment, and because the medical evidence offered does not constitute substantial evidence, the Court is not permitted to rely upon it. Accordingly, an unapportioned award is warranted.

  The Appeals Board found Dr. Mack's apportionment opinion was not substantial evidence as it lacked required detailed explanation and reasoning, thus denying apportionment and awarding an unapportioned permanent disability.

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ9477566 · 2026-05-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the supplemental briefing, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, because we conclude that (1) section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply to the claim, but that (2) the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, a necessary factual predicate to application of those subdivisions.

  The Board concluded that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply, but the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, which is necessary to apply those subdivisions.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10902369 · 2026-05-15 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9Here, the record is deficient regarding the method of calculating permanent disability considering Vigil. To rebut the CVC, an employee must present evidence explaining what impact their impairments have had upon their ADLs. Where the medical evidence demonstrates that there is effectively an absence of overlap in the impacted ADLs, or an amplified overall functional impact, the employee has rebutted the CVC. Here, PQME Dr. Watkin opined that adding applicant's impairments was appropriate because he cannot squat to spare his low back due to lower extremity joint injuries, and he cannot bend to spare his lower extremity joints due to his low back condition.

  The Appeals Board found the record deficient regarding the method of calculating permanent disability under Vigil, requiring further development of the record for PQME Dr. Watkins to conduct a complete overlap analysis of applicant's ADLs to determine whether impairments should be added or combined.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ20181505 · 2026-05-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, we are concerned that the WCJ did not clearly make a finding as to whether applicant was hired in California or, perhaps more precisely, where applicant was located at the time the Bears reached out to him to offer him employment. As a result, further study of the record and the caselaw surrounding personal jurisdiction is necessary to determine whether the WCJ's decision can be effectively evaluated in the absence of such a finding, or whether we must return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine that factual question prior to rendering a judgement on whether there is personal jurisdiction over the Bears in California for purposes of this claim.

  The WCJ did not clearly find whether applicant was hired in California or where the Bears reached out to him, which is necessary to evaluate personal jurisdiction; further proceedings are needed to determine this factual question.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13153374 · 2026-04-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the May 12, 2021 Joint Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found no jurisdiction over applicant's specific and cumulative injury claims based upon findings that applicant was neither hired nor regularly employed in California. Applicant asserts that the WCJ erred because defendant is a California-based team that directed and controlled applicant's employment from California and that directed applicant to undergo surgery in this state for work-related injuries. We received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration ("Report"), recommending that the Petition be denied. Subsequent to the grant of reconsideration, the Court of Appeal issued Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] ("Gandy"), a decision interpreting Labor Code2 section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Of specific relevance to this case, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:

  The WCJ found no jurisdiction because applicant was neither hired nor regularly employed in California, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the impact of the Gandy decision, which interprets the meaning of 'hire' in California workers' compensation law and favors a liberal construction to find California jurisdiction when the employer is California-based.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13858864 · 2026-03-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration and affirm the F&O, except that we will amend it to find that the section 5412 date of injury was May 4, 2021 (Finding of Fact No. 2); that compensation is not barred by section 5405 (Finding of Fact No. 3); and that applicant is not estopped from claiming injury under the equitable doctrine of laches (Finding of Fact No. 5).

  The WCAB found the date of injury to be May 4, 2021, so the claim was filed within the one-year statute of limitations under section 5405, and the defendant failed to prove prejudice to support laches.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ19285806 · 2026-01-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the October 1, 2025 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from April 21, 2017 to April 29, 2021, claims to have sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, back, spine, arms, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, hips, legs, knees, ankles, feet, toes, internal [system], [ears, nose, throat/temporomandibular joint], neurological [system]/psych[e], hearing, vision, sleep, and chronic pain. The WCJ determined that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim of injury.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's denial of subject matter jurisdiction was premature and granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the entire record.

  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.

• BOBER, PETERSON & KOBY
• BOBER, PETERSON & KOBY, LLP
• BOBER PETERSON & KOBY
• Bober, Peterson & Koby, LLP
• Bober Peterson & Koby
• Bober, Peterson & Koby
• Bober Peterson
• BOBER PETERSON LAW FIRM
• BOBER PETERSON KOBY
• BOBER PETERSON

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.