California WCABLaw firm
Law Offices of Berry Smith
Law Offices of Berry Smith is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2024. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Psyche AOE/COE (1) and Statute of limitations (1). They were heard most often at Fresno, then Bakersfield. The firm it meets most often is Bradford & Barthel (1).
- Decisions
- 9
- Years
- 2021–2024
- Issues disputed
- 3
- District offices
- 2
Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 7 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.
1 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 8 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.
- ADJ17893407 · 2024-08-13 · Fresno District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 21, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in relevant part that applicant sustained an industrial psychiatric injury and that the defense of good faith personnel action pursuant to the Labor Code section1 3208.3(h) does not apply.
The WCJ found that applicant sustained an industrial psychiatric injury caused predominantly by the assault on May 6, 2022, based on the QME Dr. Stowell's medical opinion. The good faith personnel action defense was found not applicable as the assault was the predominant cause and no evidence showed the assault was a personnel action.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12021219 · 2023-05-22 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.51. the applicant, age 41 on the date of injury, while employed on 1- 26-2019 as a correctional officer, Occupational Group 490, at Delano, California, by the State of California, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the in the form of coccidioidomycosis.
The presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.10 was established but not successfully rebutted by the defense, leading to a finding of industrial injury.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ10656698 · 2022-10-07 · Bakersfield District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Since this was after the May 30, 2015 deadline, the Order found the claims barred. The Petition has not shown the Order was in error.
The employer furnished some medical treatment but denied the claims on May 30, 2014. The one-year statute of limitations under Labor Code §5405 began on the date of denial. Applications were filed after the deadline, so the claims are barred.
Official decision · page 4 → - 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 → - ADJ16158517 · 2024-08-30 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.1On June 13, 2024, a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an order setting this matter for trial. On July 10, 2024, defendant filed a Petition for Removal in response to the order. On July 24, 2024, the matter proceeded to a hearing. According to the minutes, the WCJ issued an order taking the matter off calendar and noted that the issues raised in defendant's Petition were resolved by the order.
The issues raised in the Petition for Removal were resolved by the WCJ order taking the matter off calendar, rendering the petition moot.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12803585 · 2024-07-25 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) dated April 22, 2024, and issued on May 1, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant has permanent disability as found by qualified medical evaluator (QME) Dr. Deshmukh for the cervical spine, and by QME Dr. Bhatia for the left upper extremity, with a combined rating of 59% after adjustment for age and occupation; and applicant has "further permanent disability determined by Paul Stanford... resulting in a 100% permanent disability" and the reports were determined to be substantial evidence; and that the reports of Scott Simon were determined not to be substantial evidence.1
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's Findings and Award lacked substantial evidence due to incomplete vocational expert report review by QMEs, requiring further development of the record consistent with recent en banc decisions.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ11075172 · 2022-04-25 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant 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, which we adopt and incorporate, except for the recommendation that we dismiss defendant's petition, we will deny reconsideration.
The Petition for Reconsideration was denied based on the WCJ's report and the substantial medical evidence supporting industrial causation of death.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ9640830 · 2021-10-19 · Fresno 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.
The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final adverse decision.
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.
- BERRY, SMITH & BARTELL
- BERRY SMITH & BARTELL
- Law Offices of Berry Smith
- BERRY SMITH, ESQ.
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.