California WCABLaw firm

Humphrey & Associates

Humphrey & Associates is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. They were heard most often at Anaheim, then Bakersfield. The firm it meets most often is Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen (1).

Decisions: 6
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 0
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 5 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

3 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

Anaheim 4
Bakersfield 1
Van Nuys 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.

4 for the defense
1 for the applicant

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ18504248 · 2026-03-09 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on January 7, 2026. We did not receive a Report and there is no notice of transmission by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Thus, we conclude that the parties were not provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) and were not provided with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on January 7, 2026.
The Appeals Board found that the parties were not provided with required notice of transmission and the record was incomplete, preventing meaningful review and denying due process; therefore, the petition was granted and a Notice of Intention to rescind was issued.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ19771743 · 2025-10-27 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration and return this matter to this trial level. Upon return, we recommend that the WCJ treat the Petition as a petition to set aside the Stipulation and set a hearing as there is currently no evidence admitted into the record regarding defendant's contentions. At the hearing, the parties will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and submit evidence upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ. After the WCJ issues a decision, either party may then timely seek reconsideration of that decision.
The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because no evidence of good cause to set aside the Stipulation and Award had been admitted into the record; the matter was remanded for a hearing to develop the record.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ18816357 · 2025-05-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16142394 · 2024-07-05 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Here, the Order Suspending and the April NIT are both interim procedural and/or discovery orders. Neither of these orders represent a final order finally determining any substantive right or liability of any party, nor finally determining any threshold issue basic to applicant's right to benefit. The Order Suspending neither approved nor disapproved the C&R, and the April NIT made no findings of fact or award of sanctions. Both orders set the issues presented for further discovery and further hearing, thereby ensuring due process for all parties involved.
The orders at issue are interim procedural and/or discovery orders, not final orders determining any substantive right or threshold issue. Therefore, they are not subject to reconsideration.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ15496065 · 2024-02-13 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration/Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's order was not a final decision determining substantive rights or a threshold issue. The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13376519 · 2022-10-04 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant filed a Petition for Removal of the August 11, 2022 Order that claims adjuster, Lorrie Ragsdale appear at the October 4, 2022 trial. Separately, defendant filed a Petition for Disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. In the August 11, 2022 Order, the WCJ ordered that the August 11, 2022 hearing be converted into an MSC. The WCJ also ordered the parties to file trial briefs. Finally, the WCJ ordered defendant's claims adjuster to appear at trial.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and found no basis for disqualification of the WCJ based on the record and WCJ's impartiality analysis.
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.

HUMPHREY & ASSOCIATES
HUMPHREY AND ASSOCIATES
HUMPHREY ASSOCIATES

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the defense

1 for the applicant

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ18504248 · 2026-03-09 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on January 7, 2026. We did not receive a Report and there is no notice of transmission by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Thus, we conclude that the parties were not provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) and were not provided with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on January 7, 2026.

The Appeals Board found that the parties were not provided with required notice of transmission and the record was incomplete, preventing meaningful review and denying due process; therefore, the petition was granted and a Notice of Intention to rescind was issued.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ19771743 · 2025-10-27 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration and return this matter to this trial level. Upon return, we recommend that the WCJ treat the Petition as a petition to set aside the Stipulation and set a hearing as there is currently no evidence admitted into the record regarding defendant's contentions. At the hearing, the parties will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and submit evidence upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ. After the WCJ issues a decision, either party may then timely seek reconsideration of that decision.

The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because no evidence of good cause to set aside the Stipulation and Award had been admitted into the record; the matter was remanded for a hearing to develop the record.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ18816357 · 2025-05-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16142394 · 2024-07-05 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Here, the Order Suspending and the April NIT are both interim procedural and/or discovery orders. Neither of these orders represent a final order finally determining any substantive right or liability of any party, nor finally determining any threshold issue basic to applicant's right to benefit. The Order Suspending neither approved nor disapproved the C&R, and the April NIT made no findings of fact or award of sanctions. Both orders set the issues presented for further discovery and further hearing, thereby ensuring due process for all parties involved.

The orders at issue are interim procedural and/or discovery orders, not final orders determining any substantive right or threshold issue. Therefore, they are not subject to reconsideration.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ15496065 · 2024-02-13 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration/Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's order was not a final decision determining substantive rights or a threshold issue. The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13376519 · 2022-10-04 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant filed a Petition for Removal of the August 11, 2022 Order that claims adjuster, Lorrie Ragsdale appear at the October 4, 2022 trial. Separately, defendant filed a Petition for Disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. In the August 11, 2022 Order, the WCJ ordered that the August 11, 2022 hearing be converted into an MSC. The WCJ also ordered the parties to file trial briefs. Finally, the WCJ ordered defendant's claims adjuster to appear at trial.

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and found no basis for disqualification of the WCJ based on the record and WCJ's impartiality analysis.

Official decision · page 1 →