California WCABLaw firm

J. Smith Law PC

J. Smith Law PC is named in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2024–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), QME/AME process (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at Bakersfield. The firm it meets most often is Bradford & Barthel (1).

Decisions: 5
Years: 2024–2026
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 4 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

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Bakersfield 5

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.

2 for the defense
2 returned for more record
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.

ADJ20709426 · 2026-04-20 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7The holding in Huston requires that in order to be relieved of potential liability for temporary disability for an injured worker capable of returning to modified duties, the employer must establish that work within applicant's restrictions is both available and offered. An offer of regular, modified, or alternative work must be bona fide. (Dennis v. State of California (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 28, 43 (Appeals Board en banc).) A resignation cannot be interpreted as a refusal of modified work and cannot be used as a basis for denying temporary disability if modified work was not offered. (City of Seaside v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sanchez) (1991) 56 Cal.Comp.Cases 598 (writ den.).) Moreover, where an injured worker's resignation is a result of the injury, the worker cannot be said to be unwilling to work. (See Gonzales, supra, at p. 1479.)
The employer did not make a bona fide offer of modified work in writing and did not appropriately accommodate the applicant's work restrictions. The resignation was due to the effects of the industrial injury, not a voluntary non-industrial reason. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ12435916 · 2026-03-27 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Here, the existing record is insufficient on the issue of whether the April 16, 2023 left shoulder injury was a compensable consequence of the June 11, 2017 industrial injury to the left hand, left index finger, and left wrist. The QME concluded that `[t]he left shoulder condition is non-industrial as it happened from the fall that occurred on April 16, 2023." (Joint Exhibit #A3, at p. 19.) However, we find the QME's opinion on causation of the left shoulder injury to be conclusory and to not constitute substantial medical evidence. In the supplemental report issued after the May 23, 2024 re-evaluation, the QME reviewed medical records spanning from June 10, 2019 to July 19, 2023. (Id. at pp. 9-18.) The QME opined there was no medical evidence to support that the "June 11, 2017 injury, contributed to occurrence of the April 16, 2023, accident in terms of weakness or inability to engage in the function of the hand operating the motorbike." (Id. at p.
The QME's opinion that the April 16, 2023 left shoulder injury was non-industrial was conclusory and lacked substantial medical evidence, given the applicant's continuous treatment history for the left wrist and hand prior to the 2023 injury, necessitating further development of the record.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ18724961 · 2025-11-03 · Bakersfield District OfficeQME/AME processremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Discovery Order (F&O) issued on July 29, 2025. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that Scott Graham, M.D., is the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) for both ADJ18724961 and ADJ15255319 and that defendant waived entitlement to a medical-legal examination via a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) selected from Panel #7803054 for the cumulative injury by previously seeking the opinion of the AME.
The WCJ found defendant waived entitlement to a QME panel by previously seeking the opinion of the AME, but the WCAB found the record was inadequate and rescinded the decision, remanding for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17140347 · 2025-05-15 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on removal, the parties entered into a Compromise & Release. Therefore, the Petition for Removal in response to the decision issued on June 26, 2024 is moot, and it will be dismissed.
The parties entered into a Compromise & Release while the Petition for Removal was pending, rendering the petition moot.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15769399 · 2024-09-30 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition as premature and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ treat the Petition as a petition to set aside and set a hearing so that applicant can provide evidence in support of his arguments and create a record upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ.
The Petition was dismissed as premature because no evidentiary record was developed and the WCJ must consider the Petition as one to set aside the Stipulation with an opportunity for evidence and hearing.
Official decision · page 8 →

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.

J SMITH LAW, PC
J SMITH LAW
J. Smith Law PC

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 →

J. Smith Law PC

Decisions

Years

2024–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

2 for the defense

2 returned for more record

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.

ADJ20709426 · 2026-04-20 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7The holding in Huston requires that in order to be relieved of potential liability for temporary disability for an injured worker capable of returning to modified duties, the employer must establish that work within applicant's restrictions is both available and offered. An offer of regular, modified, or alternative work must be bona fide. (Dennis v. State of California (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 28, 43 (Appeals Board en banc).) A resignation cannot be interpreted as a refusal of modified work and cannot be used as a basis for denying temporary disability if modified work was not offered. (City of Seaside v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sanchez) (1991) 56 Cal.Comp.Cases 598 (writ den.).) Moreover, where an injured worker's resignation is a result of the injury, the worker cannot be said to be unwilling to work. (See Gonzales, supra, at p. 1479.)

The employer did not make a bona fide offer of modified work in writing and did not appropriately accommodate the applicant's work restrictions. The resignation was due to the effects of the industrial injury, not a voluntary non-industrial reason. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ12435916 · 2026-03-27 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.6Here, the existing record is insufficient on the issue of whether the April 16, 2023 left shoulder injury was a compensable consequence of the June 11, 2017 industrial injury to the left hand, left index finger, and left wrist. The QME concluded that `[t]he left shoulder condition is non-industrial as it happened from the fall that occurred on April 16, 2023." (Joint Exhibit #A3, at p. 19.) However, we find the QME's opinion on causation of the left shoulder injury to be conclusory and to not constitute substantial medical evidence. In the supplemental report issued after the May 23, 2024 re-evaluation, the QME reviewed medical records spanning from June 10, 2019 to July 19, 2023. (Id. at pp. 9-18.) The QME opined there was no medical evidence to support that the "June 11, 2017 injury, contributed to occurrence of the April 16, 2023, accident in terms of weakness or inability to engage in the function of the hand operating the motorbike." (Id. at p.

The QME's opinion that the April 16, 2023 left shoulder injury was non-industrial was conclusory and lacked substantial medical evidence, given the applicant's continuous treatment history for the left wrist and hand prior to the 2023 injury, necessitating further development of the record.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ18724961 · 2025-11-03 · Bakersfield District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Discovery Order (F&O) issued on July 29, 2025. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that Scott Graham, M.D., is the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) for both ADJ18724961 and ADJ15255319 and that defendant waived entitlement to a medical-legal examination via a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) selected from Panel #7803054 for the cumulative injury by previously seeking the opinion of the AME.

The WCJ found defendant waived entitlement to a QME panel by previously seeking the opinion of the AME, but the WCAB found the record was inadequate and rescinded the decision, remanding for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17140347 · 2025-05-15 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on removal, the parties entered into a Compromise & Release. Therefore, the Petition for Removal in response to the decision issued on June 26, 2024 is moot, and it will be dismissed.

The parties entered into a Compromise & Release while the Petition for Removal was pending, rendering the petition moot.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15769399 · 2024-09-30 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition as premature and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ treat the Petition as a petition to set aside and set a hearing so that applicant can provide evidence in support of his arguments and create a record upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ.

The Petition was dismissed as premature because no evidentiary record was developed and the WCJ must consider the Petition as one to set aside the Stipulation with an opportunity for evidence and hearing.

Official decision · page 8 →