Grove Law Firm

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• QME/AME process2
• Substantial evidence / credibility1
• Permanent disability rating1
• Permanent total disability1

Where they appear

• Fresno 7
• Stockton 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 firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 6 for the defense
• 2 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 8 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.

• ADJ15870256 · 2023-05-23 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal from the August 24, 2022 Amended Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a respiratory therapist on October 24, 2021, sustained industrial injury to left knee. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant's QME panel was invalid, and that the parties were required to start the panel QME selection process anew.

  The parties had completed the procedural steps to obtain a valid QME panel while applicant was unrepresented, and applicant's request for a new panel after retaining counsel was proper under Labor Code section 4062.2 and Romero precedent. The WCJ's invalidation of the panel was reversed as it would cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12897344 · 2022-03-07 · Fresno District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5A. Substantiality Petitioner avers the findings are not justified by the evidence, contending Dr. Oehlschlaeger opinions do not constitute substantial medical evidence. Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories. (Heggin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Ed. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169) Medical opinion also fails to support the Board's findings if it is based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. (Id.) Petitioner contends Dr. Oehlschlaeger opinion that there exists a "... reasonable medical probability... arose out of and occurred during the course of employment at Bush Construction from the heavy physical labor required,...

  The WCJ and WCAB found Dr. Oehlschlaeger's medical opinions to constitute substantial medical evidence based on his detailed evaluation, physical examination, and review of medical records, despite Petitioner's contentions of conclusory opinions and lack of explanation.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ3825055 · 2022-01-25 · Fresno District OfficePermanent total disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. Defendant, Affinity Insurance Limited, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on March 8, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injury to her back and left knee, ankle, foot, upper extremity and shoulder arising out of and in the course of her employment on July 11, 2011, as a truck driver by H&R Livestock Transportation, Inc., caused permanent total disability and need for further medical treatment. Defendant Affinity Insurance Limited, which insured the employer for workers' compensation liability at the time of the injury, contends in its petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant's injury caused permanent total disability. Applicant filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which he recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied. Subsequently, at our request the parties participated in a commissioners' settlement conference and agreed to resolve this matter by Compromise and Release.

  The WCJ found permanent total disability caused by the injury; defendant contested this finding; the matter was settled by Compromise and Release.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14388789 · 2022-01-10 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought removal of the Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 8, 2021. By the F&O, the WCJ found in relevant part that defendant was not precluded from requesting a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel per Labor Code1 section 4062.2 when applicant became represented. (Lab. Code, § 4062.2.)

  The Appeals Board held that defendant was not precluded from requesting a new QME panel because no examination was actually conducted due to lack of interpreter, so defendant was entitled to request a new panel under Romero.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9618682 · 2021-08-12 · Fresno District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13IV. We agree with applicant that the WCJ improperly failed to include the permanent impairment provided by the neurological QME Dr. Wang for headaches, disfigurement and right leg pain. However, with respect to the impairment rating Dr. Wang provided for her sleep disorder, the record does not reflect that applicant has pled injury AOE/COE for sleep dysfunction. (See Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, January 25, 2021, p. 2.) Due process requires that defendant be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before an award for injury AOE/COE in the form of sleep dysfunction or an increased permanent disability rating for sleep may be made. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157- 158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805], citing Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Baskin) (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21].) Moreover, Dr. Wang's reporting attributed applicant's sleep disorder to chronic pain. Per section 4660.1(c), applicant may not receive an increased impairment rating for her sleep disorder since it was considered a compensable consequence of her physical injury. In conclusion, we will rescind the F&A and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The WCAB agreed with applicant that the WCJ improperly excluded impairment ratings for headaches, disfigurement and right leg pain from the neurological QME Dr. Wang, but excluded sleep disorder impairment because sleep was not pled as a body part and is considered a compensable consequence of physical injury.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ11621404 · 2021-06-18 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Cal.App.4th 298, 313 [79 Cal.Comp.Cases 488]; Hand Rehabilitation Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Obernier) (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1212-1213 [60 Cal.Comp.Cases 289]; Bolanos v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2014 W/D) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1531.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297§ 298 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this matter the issue submitted for decision was injury AOE/COE. The evidence submitted was defendant's denial of applicant's claim, Dr. Brox's report and the transcript of his deposition. (Exhs. AA, BB, and CC.) Applicant submitted no testimony or medical evidence that was inconsistent with the opinions stated by Dr. Brox. Nor did applicant object to proceeding to trial on the issue of injury AOE/COE. (MOH/SOE, October 29, 2020; MOH/SOE, March 17, 2021.) It was not defendant's burden to prove that applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE, it was applicant's burden to prove that she did. Applicant did not meet her burden of proof.

  Applicant did not meet her burden of proof to show injury AOE/COE; defendant's denial, QME Dr. Brox's report and deposition were substantial evidence supporting no injury; applicant submitted no contradictory medical evidence or testimony.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11621404 · 2021-02-16 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2We must first point out, it is well established that any award, order or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310].) Decisions of the Appeals Board, and in turn, the WCJs, "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) (Appeals Board en banc) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476.) "The evidence submitted by the parties must be formally admitted and must be included in the record to enable the parties to comprehend the basis for the decision. Furthermore, a proper record enables any reviewing tribunal, be it the Board on reconsideration or a court of further appeal, to understand the basis for the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at 475.)

  The WCJ's original decision was based on evidence not properly admitted into the record, specifically the deposition transcript of Dr. Brox was not admitted as evidence, making the record inadequate to determine injury AOE/COE. The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings to properly admit evidence and issue a new decision.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ8210063 · 2025-02-27 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on January 2, 2025, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on January 2, 2025. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on January 2, 2025.

  The WCAB panel found that the petition challenged an interlocutory order regarding development of the record, which is not a final order subject to reconsideration, and that the petitioner did not establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order, thus denial of reconsideration was appropriate.

  Official decision · page 6 →

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.

• GROVE LAW FIRM
• GROVE LAW
• Grove Law Firm
• GROVE LAW OFFICES

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.