Law Offices of Thomas J. Anderson

What they litigate

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

• Apportionment1
• QME/AME process1

Where they appear

• Oxnard 5

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.

• 4 for the defense
• 1 for the applicant

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ16082204 · 2025-07-28 · Oxnard District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5III. Defendant carries the burden of proof on apportionment. (§ 5705.) Apportionment of permanent disability must address causation of disability and must constitute substantial evidence. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620-621 (Appeals Board en banc).) To constitute substantial evidence "... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Id. at 621.) Section 4664 allows apportionment to prior awards of disability. (§ 4664.) To prove apportionment under section 4664, defendant must first prove that a prior award of disability exists. (Pasquotto v. Hayward Lumber (2006) 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 223 [Appeals Board en banc opinion]; see also, Sanchez, supra; see also, Strong v. City and County of San Francisco (2005)

  Defendant failed to prove prior award of disability overlapping with current award and failed to provide medical evidence of overlap, thus failing burden of proof on apportionment.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14300773 · 2024-06-24 · Oxnard District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8*** (c) Form 31.7 shall be used to request an additional QME panel in a different specialty. The Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues. We note that here, applicant has testified that he claims injury to body parts outside the field of orthopedic medicine, and existing medical records indicate that applicant has sought treatment for these conditions during the period of industrial exposure. Thus good cause exists for the issuance of an additional panel as requested. This issue has now occupied two trials in six months, and further delay on this issue by the parties would not ensure an expeditious resolution of this matter. Consequently, an additional QME panel will be required to fully address the claimed continuous trauma injury in the field of internal medicine. Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the April 9, 2024 Findings and Order, and substitute new findings that applicant is entitled to a QME in internal medicine and all other issues are deferred.

  The WCAB found good cause for issuance of an additional QME panel in internal medicine because applicant claimed injury to internal systems during the continuous trauma period and existing medical evidence supported the need for causation opinion in that specialty. The WCJ's denial based on timeliness and procedural grounds was found erroneous and rescinded.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ21211765 · 2026-06-01 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ's decision includes a finding regarding threshold issues of employment and injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.

  The WCJ's decision included threshold findings making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but the petition only challenged an interlocutory discovery order. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, so removal was not warranted.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14889020 · 2024-03-19 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

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

  Petitioner withdrew the petition for removal, leading to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14549823 · 2022-04-27 · Oxnard 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, § 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, 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 because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  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 THOMAS ANDERSON
• LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. ANDERSON
• Law Offices of Thomas J. Anderson
• Law Offices of Thomas Anderson

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.