California WCABLaw firm

Law Office of Mark a. Vickness

Law Office of Mark a. Vickness is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Cumulative trauma (1) and Earnings / average weekly earnings (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then San Bernardino. The firm it meets most often is Pearlman, Brown & Wax (3).

Decisions: 7
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 6 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 4
San Bernardino 2
Santa Barbara 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.

5 for the applicant
2 for the defense

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ16389400 · 2026-03-03 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Award after Order Setting Aside issued on January 10, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found, based on the parties' stipulation, that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his bilateral knees while employed as a heavy equipment mechanic, during the period from May 12, 2021 to May 12, 2022. The WCJ further found that the injury herein caused 66% permanent disability; that the evidence in this case is consistent with Kite and Vigil and, therefore, impairment in the right and left knees is added; and that there is no legal basis for apportionment.
The WCJ found, and the WCAB affirmed, that the evidence supports adding impairments for both knees under Kite and Vigil, and that defendant did not meet its burden of proof for apportionment to non-industrial or prior industrial factors, as Dr. Graham's opinions were not substantial evidence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15337248 · 2023-05-15 · San Bernardino District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3III. FACTS the applicant, hereinafter Applicant, alleged a cumulative trauma to his right knee arising out of and in the course of his employment for Southern California Edison in Bishop, California during the period September 10, 2020 through September 10, 2021. An application for adjudication consistent with the above was filed dated October 20, 2021. The matter proceeded to Trial on January 10, 2023 on issues of whether the Applicant was entitled to a replacement PQME or further development of the record prior to proceeding to Trial on AOE/COE and injury arising out of and in the course of employment. Documentary evidence was received and the Applicant testified on his own behalf. The matter was submitted on January 10, 2023. On February 17, 2023 a Findings and Order issued, as well as an Opinion on Decision. By verified Petition for Reconsideration dated and filed on March 14, 2023, Applicant, by and through his attorney of record, Mark A. Vickness, seeks reconsideration. Defendant, by and
The WCJ found the Applicant credible but the medical evidence, particularly the substantial and persuasive opinion of PQME Dr. Hall, did not support a finding of a new cumulative trauma injury. Other medical reports were either conclusory or predated the alleged injury period and did not establish causation. The Applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden of proof for the cumulative trauma injury claim.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12393038 · 2023-03-07 · Oakland District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Under the foregoing authorities, the WCJ is required to determine the employee's AWW based upon the employee's "daily earnings at the time of the injury" and is generally not permitted to utilize evidence of previous earnings to diminish that calculation because the calculation is intended to reflect the employee's earning capacity, not necessarily the employee's earnings history. We discern no error in the F&A.
The WCJ correctly calculated the average weekly wage based on earnings at the time of injury, consistent with Labor Code section 4453(c) and relevant case law, rejecting defendant's argument to average over the entire tenure.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ12177450 · 2021-03-04 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Edil "David" the applicant was employed as a laborer for Bayview Environmental Services on July 29, 2018, at which time he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on Interstate 5 in Kern County, California. A passenger in the applicant' vehicle, Christian Agusto Avilagarcia, died at the scene. the applicant succumbed to his injuries at Kern Medical Center on August 15, 2018.
The Board found that the applicant's travel to the Bay Area during his time off was a practice reasonably expected by the employer and that the supervisor knew of and did not object to the travel, thus the injury was sustained arising out of and in the course of employment.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ16389400 · 2024-09-09 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on March 6, 2024, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12288709 · 2023-10-02 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any issues raised in the petition and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration of the WCJ's new decision.
The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior WCJ decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12393038 · 2022-10-28 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3By timely, verified petition filed on August 29, 2022, defendant seeks reconsideration of the decision filed herein on August 10, 2022, in this case, which arises out of a denied injury on July 29, 2018. Petitioner, hereinafter defendant, contends that it was error to issue a decision without the minutes of hearing and summary of evidence having been served, to find the injury compensable, honoring the "commercial traveler rule" over the "going and coming rule," and to award benefits at the statutory maximum rate. Applicant has filed an answer, also decrying the lack of minutes and summary of evidence, and otherwise supporting the decision. I will recommend that reconsideration be granted, the decision annulled, and the matter returned to the trial level so that the decision can be reissued, restoring the parties' appellate rights in light of the minutes and summary, which have now been served.1
Reconsideration granted because the parties were not served with the minutes of hearing and summary of evidence before the prior decision, which is required for perfecting appeals.
Official decision · page 3 →

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.

THE LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. VICKNESS
Law Office of Mark A. Vickness
LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. VICKNESS
Mark A. Vickness

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 Mark a. Vickness

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

2 for the defense

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ16389400 · 2026-03-03 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Award after Order Setting Aside issued on January 10, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found, based on the parties' stipulation, that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his bilateral knees while employed as a heavy equipment mechanic, during the period from May 12, 2021 to May 12, 2022. The WCJ further found that the injury herein caused 66% permanent disability; that the evidence in this case is consistent with Kite and Vigil and, therefore, impairment in the right and left knees is added; and that there is no legal basis for apportionment.

The WCJ found, and the WCAB affirmed, that the evidence supports adding impairments for both knees under Kite and Vigil, and that defendant did not meet its burden of proof for apportionment to non-industrial or prior industrial factors, as Dr. Graham's opinions were not substantial evidence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15337248 · 2023-05-15 · San Bernardino District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3III. FACTS the applicant, hereinafter Applicant, alleged a cumulative trauma to his right knee arising out of and in the course of his employment for Southern California Edison in Bishop, California during the period September 10, 2020 through September 10, 2021. An application for adjudication consistent with the above was filed dated October 20, 2021. The matter proceeded to Trial on January 10, 2023 on issues of whether the Applicant was entitled to a replacement PQME or further development of the record prior to proceeding to Trial on AOE/COE and injury arising out of and in the course of employment. Documentary evidence was received and the Applicant testified on his own behalf. The matter was submitted on January 10, 2023. On February 17, 2023 a Findings and Order issued, as well as an Opinion on Decision. By verified Petition for Reconsideration dated and filed on March 14, 2023, Applicant, by and through his attorney of record, Mark A. Vickness, seeks reconsideration. Defendant, by and

The WCJ found the Applicant credible but the medical evidence, particularly the substantial and persuasive opinion of PQME Dr. Hall, did not support a finding of a new cumulative trauma injury. Other medical reports were either conclusory or predated the alleged injury period and did not establish causation. The Applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden of proof for the cumulative trauma injury claim.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12393038 · 2023-03-07 · Oakland District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Under the foregoing authorities, the WCJ is required to determine the employee's AWW based upon the employee's "daily earnings at the time of the injury" and is generally not permitted to utilize evidence of previous earnings to diminish that calculation because the calculation is intended to reflect the employee's earning capacity, not necessarily the employee's earnings history. We discern no error in the F&A.

The WCJ correctly calculated the average weekly wage based on earnings at the time of injury, consistent with Labor Code section 4453(c) and relevant case law, rejecting defendant's argument to average over the entire tenure.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ12177450 · 2021-03-04 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Edil "David" the applicant was employed as a laborer for Bayview Environmental Services on July 29, 2018, at which time he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on Interstate 5 in Kern County, California. A passenger in the applicant' vehicle, Christian Agusto Avilagarcia, died at the scene. the applicant succumbed to his injuries at Kern Medical Center on August 15, 2018.

The Board found that the applicant's travel to the Bay Area during his time off was a practice reasonably expected by the employer and that the supervisor knew of and did not object to the travel, thus the injury was sustained arising out of and in the course of employment.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ16389400 · 2024-09-09 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on March 6, 2024, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12288709 · 2023-10-02 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any issues raised in the petition and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration of the WCJ's new decision.

The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior WCJ decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12393038 · 2022-10-28 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3By timely, verified petition filed on August 29, 2022, defendant seeks reconsideration of the decision filed herein on August 10, 2022, in this case, which arises out of a denied injury on July 29, 2018. Petitioner, hereinafter defendant, contends that it was error to issue a decision without the minutes of hearing and summary of evidence having been served, to find the injury compensable, honoring the "commercial traveler rule" over the "going and coming rule," and to award benefits at the statutory maximum rate. Applicant has filed an answer, also decrying the lack of minutes and summary of evidence, and otherwise supporting the decision. I will recommend that reconsideration be granted, the decision annulled, and the matter returned to the trial level so that the decision can be reissued, restoring the parties' appellate rights in light of the minutes and summary, which have now been served.1

Reconsideration granted because the parties were not served with the minutes of hearing and summary of evidence before the prior decision, which is required for perfecting appeals.

Official decision · page 3 →