California WCABLaw firm

Law Office of John Bloom

Law Office of John Bloom is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to QME/AME process (2), Permanent total disability (2) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Santa Rosa. The firm it meets most often is Coleman, Chavez & Associates (2).

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 9 of 9 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

1 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

Santa Rosa 12

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
5 returned for more record
2 for the defense

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.

ADJ10219413 · 2026-05-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued on September 9, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his thoracic spine, right shoulder, chest/ribs, right-upper extremity, and in the form of peripheral vascular disease/deep vein thrombosis, while employed as a log chocker on October 5, 2015. The WCJ further found that the injury caused permanent disability of 61%, after apportionment.
The WCJ found permanent disability of 61% after apportionment but did not find permanent total disability; applicant argued for total disability relying on vocational expert opinion, but the Appeals Board did not rule on the merits and returned the matter for settlement consideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10219413 · 2025-12-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 9, 2025 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his thoracic spine, right shoulder, chest/ribs, right-upper extremity, and in the form of peripheral vascular disease/deep vein thrombosis, while employed as a log chocker on October 5, 2015. The WCJ further found that the injury caused permanent disability of 61%, after apportionment.
The WCAB found the record incomplete and lacking substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision on permanent disability and apportionment, warranting further development and reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15013684 · 2025-08-01 · Santa Rosa District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814remanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on May 7, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The F&A, in pertinent part, found that defendant did not unreasonably delay payment of temporary disability, permanent disability, or reimbursement to Employment Development Department (EDD), but found that applicant was entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5813 and awarded attorney's fees with the parties to adjust.
The WCJ found no unreasonable delay by defendant in reimbursing EDD and no basis for penalties, but awarded attorney's fees without sufficient findings of bad faith; the WCAB found insufficient evidence to support penalties or attorney's fees and remanded for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7436343 · 2023-01-24 · Santa Rosa District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.134. The psychological QME Dr. Antonio Madrid did not engage in ex parte communication with applicant in violation of section 4062.3 or violate AD Rule 41.5, and there is no basis for a replacement psychological panel.
The Appeals Board found the communication was insignificant and inconsequential, not warranting replacement of Dr. Madrid as the QME, reversing the WCJ's prior order.
Official decision · page 13 →
ADJ14370402 · 2022-05-04 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.2The issue submitted for decision was additional periods of temporary total disability: applicant claimed he continued to be temporarily totally disabled for the period from June 13, 2021, to the present an continuing, defendant contended applicant's condition was permanent and stationary as of June 17, 2021, or in the alternative, as of September 8, 2021. (MOH/SOE, p. 2.)
The record lacked substantial evidence to determine if applicant continued to be temporarily totally disabled after September 8, 2021, and further medical evaluation was needed.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ7436343 · 2022-04-22 · Santa Rosa District OfficeQME/AME processremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal or in the alternative reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Orders (FA&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 24, 2020. By the FA&O, the WCJ found that the panel qualified medical evaluator's (QME) office engaged in ex parte communication with applicant's attorney's office in violation of Labor Code1 section 4062.3. (Lab. Code, § 4062.3.) The QME's reports were ordered inadmissible and stricken from the record. The QME was removed from the case and the Medical Unit was ordered to issue a new QME panel in psychology. Discovery was ordered reopened on all issues.
The WCJ found that the QME engaged in ex parte communication in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3, but the Appeals Board rescinded the FA&O and returned the matter for further proceedings due to an incomplete record and lack of substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11436100 · 2022-07-21 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The applicant timely petitioned for reconsideration1 of the Findings and Award that was issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 8, 2020. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.
The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior Findings and Award, and approved the stipulations with request for award as adequate and in the applicant's best interest, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10801188 · 2021-05-06 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The defendant Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF) timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award that was issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 5, 2019. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.
The WCAB granted reconsideration to study the issues and concluded the stipulations were adequate and in the applicant's best interest, approving them and rescinding the prior WCJ award.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10908262 · 2021-02-23 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10137307 · 2021-02-03 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)(1)-(2); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).)
Defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy; arguments can be made at trial.
Official decision · page 2 →

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.

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN BLOOM
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN BLOOM
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN A. BLOOM
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BLOOM

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 →

Law Office of John Bloom

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

5 returned for more record

2 for the defense

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.

ADJ10219413 · 2026-05-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued on September 9, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his thoracic spine, right shoulder, chest/ribs, right-upper extremity, and in the form of peripheral vascular disease/deep vein thrombosis, while employed as a log chocker on October 5, 2015. The WCJ further found that the injury caused permanent disability of 61%, after apportionment.

The WCJ found permanent disability of 61% after apportionment but did not find permanent total disability; applicant argued for total disability relying on vocational expert opinion, but the Appeals Board did not rule on the merits and returned the matter for settlement consideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10219413 · 2025-12-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 9, 2025 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his thoracic spine, right shoulder, chest/ribs, right-upper extremity, and in the form of peripheral vascular disease/deep vein thrombosis, while employed as a log chocker on October 5, 2015. The WCJ further found that the injury caused permanent disability of 61%, after apportionment.

The WCAB found the record incomplete and lacking substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision on permanent disability and apportionment, warranting further development and reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15013684 · 2025-08-01 · Santa Rosa District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814remanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on May 7, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The F&A, in pertinent part, found that defendant did not unreasonably delay payment of temporary disability, permanent disability, or reimbursement to Employment Development Department (EDD), but found that applicant was entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5813 and awarded attorney's fees with the parties to adjust.

The WCJ found no unreasonable delay by defendant in reimbursing EDD and no basis for penalties, but awarded attorney's fees without sufficient findings of bad faith; the WCAB found insufficient evidence to support penalties or attorney's fees and remanded for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7436343 · 2023-01-24 · Santa Rosa District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.134. The psychological QME Dr. Antonio Madrid did not engage in ex parte communication with applicant in violation of section 4062.3 or violate AD Rule 41.5, and there is no basis for a replacement psychological panel.

The Appeals Board found the communication was insignificant and inconsequential, not warranting replacement of Dr. Madrid as the QME, reversing the WCJ's prior order.

Official decision · page 13 →

ADJ14370402 · 2022-05-04 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.2The issue submitted for decision was additional periods of temporary total disability: applicant claimed he continued to be temporarily totally disabled for the period from June 13, 2021, to the present an continuing, defendant contended applicant's condition was permanent and stationary as of June 17, 2021, or in the alternative, as of September 8, 2021. (MOH/SOE, p. 2.)

The record lacked substantial evidence to determine if applicant continued to be temporarily totally disabled after September 8, 2021, and further medical evaluation was needed.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ7436343 · 2022-04-22 · Santa Rosa District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal or in the alternative reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Orders (FA&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 24, 2020. By the FA&O, the WCJ found that the panel qualified medical evaluator's (QME) office engaged in ex parte communication with applicant's attorney's office in violation of Labor Code1 section 4062.3. (Lab. Code, § 4062.3.) The QME's reports were ordered inadmissible and stricken from the record. The QME was removed from the case and the Medical Unit was ordered to issue a new QME panel in psychology. Discovery was ordered reopened on all issues.

The WCJ found that the QME engaged in ex parte communication in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3, but the Appeals Board rescinded the FA&O and returned the matter for further proceedings due to an incomplete record and lack of substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11436100 · 2022-07-21 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The applicant timely petitioned for reconsideration1 of the Findings and Award that was issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 8, 2020. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior Findings and Award, and approved the stipulations with request for award as adequate and in the applicant's best interest, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10801188 · 2021-05-06 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The defendant Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF) timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award that was issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 5, 2019. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

The WCAB granted reconsideration to study the issues and concluded the stipulations were adequate and in the applicant's best interest, approving them and rescinding the prior WCJ award.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10908262 · 2021-02-23 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10137307 · 2021-02-03 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)(1)-(2); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).)

Defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy; arguments can be made at trial.

Official decision · page 2 →