Pacific Workers' Compensation Law Center

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• Jurisdiction / venue1

Where they appear

• Oakland 4
• San Francisco 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.

• 2 for the applicant
• 1 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 4 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.

• ADJ13262420 · 2025-10-20 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

  Determinative passage · p.4II. We begin with the issue of employment. The WCJ found that on February 10, 2020, applicant was employed by Kenneth C. Ray and that applicant was not employed by BBSI. No party has challenged those findings. Accordingly, those findings will not be disturbed. If the liable party is uninsured, UEBTF may potentially provide workers' compensation benefits to applicant. When this matter was already set for trial, applicant petitioned for the joinder of UEBTF in connection to alleged employer Compass and for the joinder of Compass. Orders joining Compass and UEBTF issued on December 21, 2022. Applicant requested the dismissal of Compass on March 15, 2023. There is no evidence that Compass or UEBTF have participated in the litigation. However, the WCJ awarded benefits to applicant against both Compass and Kenneth C. Ray, even though Compass and UEBTF did not participate or attend the proceedings. Additionally, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed by Kenneth C.

  The WCJ found, and no party challenged, that applicant was employed by Kenneth C. Ray and not by BBSI on February 10, 2020.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13042596 · 2021-12-14 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The opinion of the QME, Dr. Fujinaka, on the other hand, deals more directly with the issue of causation of applicant's right hand condition. Dr. Fujinaka reviewed numerous medical records, including those of Dr. Slikker. Dr. Fujinaka's opinion on causation is also much more consistent with applicant's unrebutted and credible testimony that she developed her right hand pain over a prolonged period of time while mopping 24 private hospital rooms, each with an attached bathroom over a workweek of 40 hours, with some overtime. Accordingly, I find that the medical evidence supports a finding of industrial injury.

  The QME Dr. Fujinaka's opinion was found to be substantial medical evidence supporting industrial causation, consistent with applicant's credible testimony and unrebutted by other medical opinions.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13056523 · 2021-08-27 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Regarding the issue of injury AOE/COE, at the trial applicant claimed a psychiatric injury and injury to his back. As noted above, QME Dr. Feinberg diagnosed applicant as having chronic low back pain and psychiatric comorbidity. (Joint Exh. 100, p. 7.) He later stated that the nature of applicant's work duties over a course of years, would have contributed to his low back pain. (Joint Exh. 100, p. 8.) In his supplemental report Dr. Feinberg concluded that there was "no way to prove" whether applicant's back problems are secondary to psychiatric issues or to musculoskeletal discomfort related to his work activities. Based on applicant's deposition testimony, it appeared to Dr. Feinberg that applicant's emotional state "has a lot to do with his musculoskeletal discomfort." (Joint Exh. 101, p. 3.)

  The WCJ's initial decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the QME's reports were inconsistent and did not clearly establish causation. The Appeals Board found the record needed further development, including a psychiatric evaluation, to clarify whether the injury was caused by physical work demands, psychiatric conditions, or both.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ20235039 · 2025-06-10 · San Francisco 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 because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded 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.

• PACIFIC WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW CENTER
• Pacific Workers' Compensation Law Center
• PACIFIC WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW CENTER

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.