California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of John E. Hill

Law Offices of John E. Hill is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to Temporary disability (3), AOE/COE (2) and Earnings / average weekly earnings (1). They were heard most often at Oakland.

Decisions: 8
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 7
District offices: 1

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 8

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.

3 for the applicant
3 for the defense
3 returned for more record

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ16740659 · 2024-10-22 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.11Next, the parties dispute whether applicant's injury to the low back was industrial. No doctor has provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back. At one point, the QME concludes that there is no way to answer that question. The QME failed to adequately explain how and why he was incapable of answering the question. It further appears that the QME failed to consider the proper legal standard of causation in workers' compensation, which is contributory causation. The September 13, 2022 injury need not be the sole cause of injury to the low back. It is sufficient if the September 13, 2022 injury aggravated or exacerbated prior injury to the low back.
No doctor provided a clear causation opinion for lumbar spine injury. The QME's equivocal testimony requires further development for credibility determinations. The record is insufficient to determine industrial injury to lumbar spine.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ16740659 · 2024-08-13 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Next, the parties dispute whether applicant's injury to the low back was industrial. No doctor has provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back. At one point, the QME concludes that there is no way to answer that question. The QME failed to adequately explain how and why he was incapable of answering the question. It further appears that the QME failed to consider the proper legal standard of causation in workers' compensation, which is contributory causation. The September 13, 2022 injury need not be the sole cause of injury to the low back. It is sufficient if the September 13, 2022 injury aggravated or exacerbated prior injury to the low back.
No doctor provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back; QME equivocated and failed to apply proper legal standard; record development required.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ6741809 · 2024-06-25 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact Findings and Award Opinion on Decision" (F&A) issued on April 3, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The WCJ found permanent total disability based on QME ratings and application of Guzman and Kite, but the WCAB found the psychiatric QME's opinion stale and inadequate to support the addition of internal impairments, requiring further development of the record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15039687 · 2025-10-24 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); 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).) Here, defendant has not established substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if applicant is permitted to subpoena a copy of her own medical files. As noted by the WCJ, any issue as to whether such a cost is a reasonable litigation expense is deferred.
Defendant did not establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if the subpoena for applicant's medical records was not quashed, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issued.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ8935903 · 2025-09-10 · Oakland 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.1
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15313921 · 2022-07-26 · Oakland 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The petition was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
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 OFFICES OF JOHN E. HILL
Law Offices of John E. Hill

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

3 for the defense

3 returned for more record

Decisions

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

ADJ16740659 · 2024-10-22 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.11Next, the parties dispute whether applicant's injury to the low back was industrial. No doctor has provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back. At one point, the QME concludes that there is no way to answer that question. The QME failed to adequately explain how and why he was incapable of answering the question. It further appears that the QME failed to consider the proper legal standard of causation in workers' compensation, which is contributory causation. The September 13, 2022 injury need not be the sole cause of injury to the low back. It is sufficient if the September 13, 2022 injury aggravated or exacerbated prior injury to the low back.

No doctor provided a clear causation opinion for lumbar spine injury. The QME's equivocal testimony requires further development for credibility determinations. The record is insufficient to determine industrial injury to lumbar spine.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ16740659 · 2024-08-13 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.6Next, the parties dispute whether applicant's injury to the low back was industrial. No doctor has provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back. At one point, the QME concludes that there is no way to answer that question. The QME failed to adequately explain how and why he was incapable of answering the question. It further appears that the QME failed to consider the proper legal standard of causation in workers' compensation, which is contributory causation. The September 13, 2022 injury need not be the sole cause of injury to the low back. It is sufficient if the September 13, 2022 injury aggravated or exacerbated prior injury to the low back.

No doctor provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back; QME equivocated and failed to apply proper legal standard; record development required.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ6741809 · 2024-06-25 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact Findings and Award Opinion on Decision" (F&A) issued on April 3, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The WCJ found permanent total disability based on QME ratings and application of Guzman and Kite, but the WCAB found the psychiatric QME's opinion stale and inadequate to support the addition of internal impairments, requiring further development of the record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15039687 · 2025-10-24 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); 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).) Here, defendant has not established substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if applicant is permitted to subpoena a copy of her own medical files. As noted by the WCJ, any issue as to whether such a cost is a reasonable litigation expense is deferred.

Defendant did not establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if the subpoena for applicant's medical records was not quashed, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issued.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ8935903 · 2025-09-10 · Oakland 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.1

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15313921 · 2022-07-26 · Oakland 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

The petition was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →