Law Offices of Dennis J. Hershewe

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 20
• San Diego 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.

• 8 for the defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 6 returned for more record

Counted over 19 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ11372081 · 2025-11-17 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant Webcor Construction, insured by Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford (defendant) each seek reconsideration of the August 28, 2025 Joint Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in Case No. ADJ11372081 that applicant, while employed as a day laborer on March 28, 2018, sustained industrial injury to his head, headaches, right shoulder, neck, low back, TMJ, left ear tinnitus, both eyes, loss of consciousness, and psyche, resulting in permanent total disability. After application of nonindustrial apportionment, the WCJ awarded 80 percent permanent partial disability. In ADJ15621674, the WCJ found that applicant, while similarly employed from March 1, 2017 to May 18, 2018, sustained industrial injury in the form of bilateral hearing loss resulting in no ratable permanent disability. In ADJ11645081, applicant while similarly employed on June 20, 2017, sustained industrial injury to his left wrist, left index finger, and left hand, resulting in 14 percent permanent partial disability.

  The WCJ's apportionment analysis of Dr. Wilson was substantial evidence, but Dr. Friedman's apportionment analysis was not substantial evidence. Applicant's disabilities should be added rather than combined, resulting in a permanent disability percentage exceeding 100 percent, supporting a finding of permanent and total disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7937623 · 2025-06-27 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Order to Take Nothing on SIBTF Petition" (F&O) issued on August 16, 2021, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant failed to meet the burden of proving a pre-existing permanent partial disability and ordered that applicant take nothing on his claim of benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF).

  The applicant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had a pre-existing permanent partial disability that was labor disabling prior to the subsequent industrial injury, despite the hypertension being apportioned 70% to non-industrial factors. The apportionment of present disability to non-industrial causes does not establish that the disability pre-existed the industrial injury without medical opinion supporting that fact.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10974991 · 2025-02-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.41. the applicant, born [], while employed during the period from 9/9/09 through 10/21/16, as an eligibility worker, occupational group number 111, at Los Angeles, California, by the County of Los Angeles, Department of Social Services, sustain[ed] injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her neck, bilateral hands and wrists, lungs/asthma and psyche, and did not sustain injury to her bilateral shoulders, bilateral upper extremities (with the exception of bilateral hands and wrists), right hip, lumbar spine, or in the form of IBS, GERD, or hypertension. The record requires further development relating to applicant's claim of injury in the form of sleep.

  The WCJ found injury to neck, bilateral hands and wrists, lungs/asthma, and psyche, but no injury to bilateral shoulders, upper extremities (except hands and wrists), right hip, lumbar spine, IBS, GERD, or hypertension, based on medical reports and testimony; exclusion of Dr. Tomaszewski's report was proper due to nondisclosure.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ7850534 · 2024-09-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 8, 2024 Partial Findings of Fact, Award and Orders, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his lumbar spine and psyche and did not sustain injury to his bilateral lower extremities, ankles (right ankle solely due to cumulative trauma claim), left wrist, right shoulder, or right upper extremity (all right elbow and wrist due to cumulative trauma injury), in the form of sleep and sexual dysfunction, kidney, stomach, brain/hematoma, head, headaches, and liver, arising out of and in the course of employment. The WCJ deferred the issue of injury to applicant's left shoulder pending further development of the record.

  The WCJ found no injury arising out of and in the course of employment to these body parts and conditions based on the evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9640229 · 2024-04-26 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The disability values of multiple impairments may be added instead of combined, if adding the impairments provides an accurate rating of the injured worker's disability, particularly when there is no overlap, and when the synergistic or additive effect of the multiple disabilities support that method of rating the overall disability. (Bookout v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 214 [41 Cal.Comp.Cases 595]; Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 [2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 34] (writ den.); De La Cerda v. Martin Selko & Co. (2017) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 567 (writ den.).) In a case similar to the present matter, an Appeals Board panel noted that the psychiatric medical evaluator and the orthopedic medical evaluator agreed that the psychiatric and orthopedic disabilities did not overlap, and that since the disabilities did not overlap, it was appropriate to add the injured worker's factors of disability. (See Nohemi Taina v County of Santa Clara / Valley Medical Center (July 5, 2018 ADJ8268219) [2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS --] (panel dec.).)

  The record lacked substantial evidence on whether to add or combine disability factors; the matter was returned to the WCJ for further development on this issue.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8042236 · 2023-11-28 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on April 5, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) the findings and award finding applicant one hundred percent permanently disabled and entitled to benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) was served on August 13, 2018; (2) SIBTF issued payment on the award on September 27, 2018; (3) SIBTF is a governmental agency and not an employer for purposes of Labor Code sections 4650, 5814 and 5814.5;1 (4) the payments made by SIBTF were correct; and (5) all other issues are moot.

  The WCJ and Board found SIBTF is a governmental agency not subject to penalties under sections 4650, 5814, and 5814.5, and that SIBTF's payments were correct based on admitted evidence and stipulations binding the applicant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12651825 · 2022-08-19 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.4The disputed issues of compensability of injury to the psychiatric system and entitlement to temporary disability based thereon is deferred pending further medical reporting from both Marcia G. Lamm, Ph.D., and Douglas W. Larson, Ph.D., for discussion of causation in accordance with Rolda v. Pitney Bowes. Inc. (2001) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 241, 247 (Appeals Board en banc); the issues of whether applicant sustained compensable injuries to her neurological system and/or her circadian system are deferred.

  The WCAB deferred the issues of compensability of psychiatric injury and temporary disability pending further medical reporting from Dr. Marcia G. Lamm and Dr. Douglas W. Larson for causation discussion.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9640229 · 2022-06-17 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Although it appears that Dr. Nehorayan concluded applicant's psychiatric condition was caused by the October 8, 2013 incident, he did not explain the reasoning or analysis that was the basis for his opinion. Also, review of Dr. Navab's report indicates that he did not address the issue of whether applicant's sleep disorder was a direct result of the October 8, 2013 incident, or whether it was a consequence of the orthopedic injuries. Thus, the doctors' reports are not substantial evidence regarding the issues discussed herein.

  The WCAB found the medical reports insufficiently explained the causal relationship between the psychiatric and sleep disorders and the industrial injury, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10202584 · 2022-04-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). At the outset, we note that the applicant died on March 3, 2020, when this matter was still pending on reconsideration. Since then applicant's attorney filed an Amended Application for Adjudication of Claim for Death Benefits. However, the applicant's intervivos claim survives his death, with any accrued and unpaid compensation payable to his dependents or to his personal representative or to his heirs or other persons entitled thereto, without administration. (Lab. Code, § 4700.) We proceed to address the issues raised by defendant's petition for reconsideration. As previously noted, defendant contends that applicant's claim of cumulative trauma injury is barred by the Statute of Limitations. On this issue, we have considered the allegations of defendant's petition for reconsideration and the contents of the WCJ's Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in said Report, which we adopt and incorporate on this issue only (Report pp. 1-3, through "Discussion" paragraph (a) only), we will affirm the WCJ's rejection of the Statute of Limitations defense. Regarding the issues of psyche injury, temporary disability, and permanent disability, we conclude that the record requires further development.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ erred in using a 'range of evidence' approach and inverting Dr. Lamm's causation ratio, thus rescinding the finding on industrial causation of psychiatric injury and remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11024968 · 2022-02-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (Joint F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 20, 2021.1 By the Joint F&O, the WCJ found that the post-examination telephone calls of the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) with applicant were an impermissible ex parte communication. The WCJ ordered the Medical Unit to issue a replacement panel in psychiatry.

  The WCAB found that the QME's telephone calls were made with applicant's permission and were in connection with the examination, thus not impermissible ex parte communication under Labor Code section 4062.3(i). There was no basis to strike the QME or order a replacement panel.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10673089 · 2022-02-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.137. The UR decisions dated 7/17/18, 6/22/18, 5/25/18, 2/12/18, 1/4/18, 12/18/17, 11/28/17, 11/24/17, and 10/4/2017 were timely issued.

  The Appeals Board found all UR decisions timely issued and communicated, thus precluding jurisdiction to address medical necessity and denying penalties for delay.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ8005491 · 2021-06-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. applicant, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings and Awards issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on December 2, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injuries in these cases caused new and further disability amounting to 95% of 3%, the liability for such increase apportioned between the two injuries. Previously, a WCJ had approved stipulations on January 22, 2014, that applicant, while employed by defendant, TJ Maxx, sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment as follows: to his low back, neck and psyche and consisting of a sleep disorder and constipation on January 1, 2003, resulting in permanent partial disability of 12% and need of further medical treatment (case ADJ8005454); to his lumbar and thoracic back, neck, shoulders, psyche and consisting of a sleep disorder and constipation during a cumulative period ending June 23, 2011, resulting in permanent partial disability of 25% and need of further medical treatment (case ADJ8005491); and to his lumbar and thoracic back, neck, shoulders, psyche and consisting of a sleep disorder and constipation resulting in permanent partial disability of 45% and need of further medical treatment (case ADJ8005495). Subsequently, applicant's petition to reopen for

  The parties agreed to resolve the claims by compromise and release, and the WCAB approved the settlement as adequate and in the best interest of the applicant, rescinding the prior Findings and Awards.

  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.

• LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS J. HERSHEWE
• LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS J. HERSHEWE
• Law Offices of Dennis J. Hershewe
• Law Office of Dennis J. Hershewe
• LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS HERSHEWE
• LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS HERSHEWE

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.