California WCABLaw firm

Farnsworth Law Group

Farnsworth Law Group is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Permanent disability rating (3) and Permanent total disability (2). They were heard most often at Oakland, then San Francisco. The firm it meets most often is Coleman, Chavez & Associates (2).

Decisions: 13
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 12 of 12 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

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

Who they face

2 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 6
San Francisco 4
Santa Rosa 3

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.

5 for the applicant
4 for the defense
3 returned for more record

Counted over 12 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

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

ADJ8387927 · 2026-06-19 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR) issued on March 3, 2026, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), wherein we affirmed the May 24, 2022 Findings of Fact & Award finding that there was no evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the allergic rhinitis, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dermatitis (in the form of a rash).
Applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the listed conditions prior to the November 4, 2010 injury, including new medical reports which did not cure the evidentiary defect.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6741812 · 2026-04-03 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that applicant's subsequent permanent disability equals 35% or more of his total disability when considered alone and without regard to occupation or age.
The WCAB found that the applicant's subsequent permanent disability equals 35% or more of his total disability when considered alone and without regard to occupation or age, based on the Bookout precedent excluding apportionment from the calculation of subsequent permanent disability.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ8387927 · 2026-03-03 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Award (F&A) issued on May 24, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant had a pre-existing asthma condition with 22% permanent disability and left ankle injury on July 23, 2009 with 3% permanent disability. When combined with the subsequent November 4, 2010 injury, caused 73% permanent disability, met the eligibility threshold for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits, resulting in a combined permanent disability award of 98% less credit under Labor Code section 4753.2
The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant had pre-existing asthma and left ankle injury permanent disabilities but did not find substantial evidence of labor-disabling pre-existing permanent disability from allergic rhinitis, IBS, GERD, or dermatitis, thus denying 100% permanent disability and affirming the combined 98% award under Labor Code section 4753.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9477887 · 2025-10-29 · Oakland District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5A. There was No Timely Appeal of the Findings and Award of 03-30- 2020 Barring Additional Permanent Disability for Psychiatric Injury under Labor Code section 4660.1
Applicant's psychiatric permanent disability is barred from add-on disability under Labor Code section 4660.1(c) as the injury was not catastrophic or due to a violent act; prior final finding on this issue is binding and applicant did not appeal it.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14723140 · 2025-08-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on May 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The F&A, in pertinent part, applied the presumption of compensability in Labor Code1 section 3212.1 and found that applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of cancer resulting in applicant's death while employed by defendant.
The presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 3212.1 applied and was not rebutted. The applicant's cancer and death were found to arise out of and in the course of employment with CHP, with no evidence that subsequent employment caused the cancer.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13465387 · 2025-08-01 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3In this case, John Lavorgna, M.D., served as the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), and his opinions provided the sole medical evidence submitted by the parties. We presume that the AME was chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality, and that his opinions should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find those opinions unpersuasive. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114, 117].) In his report dated December 17, 2020, the AME determined that applicant had reached Maximal Medical Improvement and assigned Whole Person Impairment percentages for applicant's cervical spine (8 percent for a Cervical Category II Diagnosis-Related Estimate according to The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition), lumbar spine (8 percent for a Lumbar Category II Diagnosis-Related Estimate per the AMA Guides), left shoulder (16 percent whole person impairment), and left hip (20 percent for full-time use of a cane and moderately severe gait derangement). (Joint Exhibit 101, Report of AME John Lavorgna, M.D., dated December 17, 2020, page 10, paragraphs 3-6.) The AME apportioned 100 percent of these impairments to applicant's industrial injury of June 23, 2018. (Id.)
The AME's medical opinions and vocational experts' reports support a finding of 100% permanent total disability due to severe work restrictions and loss of earning capacity.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12430442 · 2024-04-22 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on July 12, 2021, wherein the WCA found that applicant was not entitled to temporary disability indemnity arising from his prostate surgery based upon Labor Code section 48531 as well as an August 22, 2017 stipulated agreement between applicant and his employer in conjunction with his industrial disability retirement (IDR).
The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking proper evidence to support the denial, requiring further proceedings for a proper record and due process.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16590361 · 2023-10-16 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The matter proceeded to an expedited hearing on July 10, 2023 on applicant's contention that he was entitled to treat outside defendant's Medical Provider Network ("MPN") as the MPN did not meet the access standards pursuant to Title 8, California Code of Regulations 9767.5. I issued my Finding and Order on August 2, 2023 where I found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that defendant's MPN did not meet the access standards, however, I found that the defendants had neglected to provide medical treatment in this case. It was on that basis that I found the applicant was entitled to treat outside the MPN at defendant's expense. It is from this Finding and Order that defendant has filed a petition for reconsideration.
The defendant neglected to provide medical treatment within the MPN, failing to arrange initial appointments despite authorizing physicians, thus the applicant is entitled to treat outside the MPN at defendant's expense.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ14647678 · 2023-07-21 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.5Having reviewed Dr. Nakashima's reports and deposition testimony, there appear to be discrepancies and/or issues that need clarification. For example, Dr. Nakashima stated that, "The subsequent medical conditions of persistent diarrhea, dehydration, heart palpitations, anxiety, and sleep disturbance, were derivatives of the 6/17/19 injury." (App. Exh. 2, p. 3.) But he later stated, "Because the patient recovered from her Salmonella enteritidis, no permanent disability exists and whole person impairment is a moot issue." (App. Exh. 3, pp. 21 § 22.) Although the doctor said applicant had recovered from the Salmonella enteritidis, he did not address the subsequent medical conditions.
The QME Dr. Nakashima's reports and deposition testimony were found not to be substantial evidence due to discrepancies, inadequate examination, and failure to address subsequent medical conditions; the record requires further development with updated medical records and re-evaluation by the QME.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ1533475 · 2022-04-28 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilitymixed
Determinative passage · p.1I. applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 13, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injuries to her low back arising out of and in the course of her employment on August 29, 2006 (case ADJ1533475) and during a cumulative period ending July 30, 2010 (ADJ8601078), as an underwriter, by defendant, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, caused permanent partial disability of 33% in the former case and 7% in the latter case. At the time of injuries, the employer was insured for workers' compensation liability by defendant, the American Insurance Company, adjusted by ESIS in case ADJ1533475 and by Sedgwick CMS in case ADJ8601078. Applicant contends in her petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in not finding that applicant's injuries caused permanent total disability. Defendant filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which she recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied.
The WCJ found permanent partial disability of 33% and 7% in two cases, but applicant contended for permanent total disability; the WCJ report recommended denial of reconsideration, and the matter was resolved by compromise and release.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10984573 · 2021-05-07 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order Re Second QME Panel (Represented Case) and Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 23, 2021. By the F&O, the WCJ found that the medical record requires further development and cannot be developed with the existing panel qualified medical evaluator (QME). She further found that a new panel should issue in the specialty of pulmonary disease and ordered the Medical Unit to issue a panel in this specialty.
The Appeals Board found that the QME's reports were not substantial evidence and that a replacement panel was not mandated by law, but the WCJ improperly ordered a new panel without proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
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.

FARNSWORTH LAW GROUP
Farnsworth Law Group
FARNSWORTH LAW GROUP, APC
LAW OFFICE OF FARNSWORTH LAW GROUP

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.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Farnsworth Law Group

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

4 for the defense

3 returned for more record

Counted over 12 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

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

ADJ8387927 · 2026-06-19 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR) issued on March 3, 2026, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), wherein we affirmed the May 24, 2022 Findings of Fact & Award finding that there was no evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the allergic rhinitis, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dermatitis (in the form of a rash).

Applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the listed conditions prior to the November 4, 2010 injury, including new medical reports which did not cure the evidentiary defect.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6741812 · 2026-04-03 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.11Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that applicant's subsequent permanent disability equals 35% or more of his total disability when considered alone and without regard to occupation or age.

The WCAB found that the applicant's subsequent permanent disability equals 35% or more of his total disability when considered alone and without regard to occupation or age, based on the Bookout precedent excluding apportionment from the calculation of subsequent permanent disability.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ8387927 · 2026-03-03 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Award (F&A) issued on May 24, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant had a pre-existing asthma condition with 22% permanent disability and left ankle injury on July 23, 2009 with 3% permanent disability. When combined with the subsequent November 4, 2010 injury, caused 73% permanent disability, met the eligibility threshold for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits, resulting in a combined permanent disability award of 98% less credit under Labor Code section 4753.2

The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant had pre-existing asthma and left ankle injury permanent disabilities but did not find substantial evidence of labor-disabling pre-existing permanent disability from allergic rhinitis, IBS, GERD, or dermatitis, thus denying 100% permanent disability and affirming the combined 98% award under Labor Code section 4753.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9477887 · 2025-10-29 · Oakland District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5A. There was No Timely Appeal of the Findings and Award of 03-30- 2020 Barring Additional Permanent Disability for Psychiatric Injury under Labor Code section 4660.1

Applicant's psychiatric permanent disability is barred from add-on disability under Labor Code section 4660.1(c) as the injury was not catastrophic or due to a violent act; prior final finding on this issue is binding and applicant did not appeal it.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14723140 · 2025-08-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on May 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The F&A, in pertinent part, applied the presumption of compensability in Labor Code1 section 3212.1 and found that applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of cancer resulting in applicant's death while employed by defendant.

The presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 3212.1 applied and was not rebutted. The applicant's cancer and death were found to arise out of and in the course of employment with CHP, with no evidence that subsequent employment caused the cancer.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13465387 · 2025-08-01 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3In this case, John Lavorgna, M.D., served as the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), and his opinions provided the sole medical evidence submitted by the parties. We presume that the AME was chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality, and that his opinions should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find those opinions unpersuasive. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114, 117].) In his report dated December 17, 2020, the AME determined that applicant had reached Maximal Medical Improvement and assigned Whole Person Impairment percentages for applicant's cervical spine (8 percent for a Cervical Category II Diagnosis-Related Estimate according to The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition), lumbar spine (8 percent for a Lumbar Category II Diagnosis-Related Estimate per the AMA Guides), left shoulder (16 percent whole person impairment), and left hip (20 percent for full-time use of a cane and moderately severe gait derangement). (Joint Exhibit 101, Report of AME John Lavorgna, M.D., dated December 17, 2020, page 10, paragraphs 3-6.) The AME apportioned 100 percent of these impairments to applicant's industrial injury of June 23, 2018. (Id.)

The AME's medical opinions and vocational experts' reports support a finding of 100% permanent total disability due to severe work restrictions and loss of earning capacity.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12430442 · 2024-04-22 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on July 12, 2021, wherein the WCA found that applicant was not entitled to temporary disability indemnity arising from his prostate surgery based upon Labor Code section 48531 as well as an August 22, 2017 stipulated agreement between applicant and his employer in conjunction with his industrial disability retirement (IDR).

The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking proper evidence to support the denial, requiring further proceedings for a proper record and due process.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16590361 · 2023-10-16 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The matter proceeded to an expedited hearing on July 10, 2023 on applicant's contention that he was entitled to treat outside defendant's Medical Provider Network ("MPN") as the MPN did not meet the access standards pursuant to Title 8, California Code of Regulations 9767.5. I issued my Finding and Order on August 2, 2023 where I found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that defendant's MPN did not meet the access standards, however, I found that the defendants had neglected to provide medical treatment in this case. It was on that basis that I found the applicant was entitled to treat outside the MPN at defendant's expense. It is from this Finding and Order that defendant has filed a petition for reconsideration.

The defendant neglected to provide medical treatment within the MPN, failing to arrange initial appointments despite authorizing physicians, thus the applicant is entitled to treat outside the MPN at defendant's expense.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ14647678 · 2023-07-21 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.5Having reviewed Dr. Nakashima's reports and deposition testimony, there appear to be discrepancies and/or issues that need clarification. For example, Dr. Nakashima stated that, "The subsequent medical conditions of persistent diarrhea, dehydration, heart palpitations, anxiety, and sleep disturbance, were derivatives of the 6/17/19 injury." (App. Exh. 2, p. 3.) But he later stated, "Because the patient recovered from her Salmonella enteritidis, no permanent disability exists and whole person impairment is a moot issue." (App. Exh. 3, pp. 21 § 22.) Although the doctor said applicant had recovered from the Salmonella enteritidis, he did not address the subsequent medical conditions.

The QME Dr. Nakashima's reports and deposition testimony were found not to be substantial evidence due to discrepancies, inadequate examination, and failure to address subsequent medical conditions; the record requires further development with updated medical records and re-evaluation by the QME.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ1533475 · 2022-04-28 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilitymixed

Determinative passage · p.1I. applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 13, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injuries to her low back arising out of and in the course of her employment on August 29, 2006 (case ADJ1533475) and during a cumulative period ending July 30, 2010 (ADJ8601078), as an underwriter, by defendant, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, caused permanent partial disability of 33% in the former case and 7% in the latter case. At the time of injuries, the employer was insured for workers' compensation liability by defendant, the American Insurance Company, adjusted by ESIS in case ADJ1533475 and by Sedgwick CMS in case ADJ8601078. Applicant contends in her petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in not finding that applicant's injuries caused permanent total disability. Defendant filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which she recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied.

The WCJ found permanent partial disability of 33% and 7% in two cases, but applicant contended for permanent total disability; the WCJ report recommended denial of reconsideration, and the matter was resolved by compromise and release.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10984573 · 2021-05-07 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order Re Second QME Panel (Represented Case) and Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 23, 2021. By the F&O, the WCJ found that the medical record requires further development and cannot be developed with the existing panel qualified medical evaluator (QME). She further found that a new panel should issue in the specialty of pulmonary disease and ordered the Medical Unit to issue a panel in this specialty.

The Appeals Board found that the QME's reports were not substantial evidence and that a replacement panel was not mandated by law, but the WCJ improperly ordered a new panel without proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

Official decision · page 1 →