Patrico, Hermanson & Guzman

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• San Diego 5
• Van Nuys 5
• Anaheim 4
• Oakland 4
• Los Angeles 3
• Riverside 3
• Fresno 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Redding 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Jose 1
• Santa Rosa 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.

• 18 for the defense
• 9 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 29 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.

• ADJ7940908 · 2026-06-01 · San Diego District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Additionally, the WCJ weighed the witnesses' testimony and found them to be credible in their assertions. Realistically, there was not much differentiation between the testimony of the employer from Applicant's testimony. We accord this credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor while testifying at trial. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318§ 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Thus, applicant failed to prove either a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of section 132a, or an actual violation of that section by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to his termination or disciplinary actions.

  Applicant failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a or an actual violation by a preponderance of the evidence regarding his termination or disciplinary actions. The WCJ found the employer's witnesses credible and the disciplinary actions consistent with company policy, not discriminatory.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• 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 →
• ADJ7835304 · 2025-10-17 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The issue presented on reconsideration is whether applicant may be paid compensation for a psychiatric injury in this matter pursuant to section 3208.3(d), which provides in relevant part:

  The Board corrected the WCJ's erroneous finding that applicant did not sustain a psychiatric injury AOE/COE but affirmed that applicant was not employed for at least six months and the injury was not caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition, thus no compensation under section 3208.3(d).

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9017829 · 2025-01-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of September 30, 2024, wherein it was found that "the applicant... while employed on June 16, 2013 as a fo[r]k lift operator... by DIAMOND STAFFING SERVICES, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FOR LUMBERMAN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE IN LIQUIDATION, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to the lumbar spine, cervical spine, and bilateral knees." (Finding of Fact No. 1.) Finding of Fact Number 2 then contradicts the first finding, (incorrectly) stating, "Pursuant to the Directive of the Workers['] Compensation Appeals Board, the Applicant was an employee of National Retail Transportation, and not an employee of Diamond Staffing Services." Finding of Fact Number 3 cryptically states, "No further issues will be addressed by the Court per Hartford's request." In this matter, Hartford is the carrier for National Retail Transportation (NRT).

  The WCJ failed to rule on CIGA's Petition for change of administration and instead re-litigated a previously settled issue; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for proper ruling on the outstanding issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14425169 · 2024-11-22 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of August 12, 2024, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to the kidney while employed during a cumulative period ending February 28, 2021. The WCJ thus ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her workers' compensation claim.

  The WCJ's original decision was rescinded because the record was insufficient to establish industrial injury; the case was remanded for further development including additional medical reports addressing causation specifically related to the applicant's diagnosed condition and chemical exposures.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7984952 · 2024-08-08 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9The basic allegation in Applicant's Petition is that Applicant's case involved a complex medical-legal evaluation and that the face to face examination time of 20 to 30 minutes with the AME Dr. Gordon, as testified to by the Applicant, is insufficient under the standard specified in Rule 49.2 for neuromusculoskeletal evaluations, with the result that the resulting report is not substantial medical evidence, cannot be the basis of an award, and that the AME should be replaced. The alleged error is my finding that the time spent with the Applicant by the AME was sufficient under the law and regulations, and that accordingly, Dr. Gordon's report is substantial medical evidence, and was the proper basis for the FA&O, and that it was not necessary to replace the AME.

  The WCJ found that the AME's face-to-face time with the applicant, combined with the history taken by staff, met the regulatory requirements and did not invalidate the AME's report as substantial medical evidence. The WCAB affirmed this finding after reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ16099603 · 2024-08-06 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Defendant acknowledges that the RFA was dated August 8, 2023. It also cites applicant's correspondence to the QME, on October 16, 2023, indicating that a surgical request by Dr. Schwartz was then pending. Then came Dr. Lockwood's report, dated November 17, 2023, and quoted above. It would appear that, even if defendant was not, during that period, in possession of the actual RFA, by all of those indications, defendant was on notice that the treating physician was recommending further surgery. Its general duty to "conduct a reasonable and timely investigation" with respect to applicant's entitlement to that medical treatment is rooted in California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 10109. It does not appear that this defendant undertook such an investigation. My conclusion after trial: "In sum, I find it reasonable to infer that December 13, 2023, was not the first date on which the request for authorization was conveyed to this defendant, and therefore that the UR decision was untimely."

  The Board found that the request for authorization was conveyed to defendant before December 13, 2023, making the utilization review decision dated December 20, 2023 untimely.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12509226 · 2024-02-29 · Riverside District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.17In summary, and based on our review of the record, we conclude that the nature of applicant's disability was not amenable to lay attribution, and therefore required medical advice as to its relation to applicant's work activities for purposes of establishing a date of injury pursuant to section 5405. The first evidence of such advice in the evidentiary record was November 13, 2019. Because the concurrence of applicant's compensable permanent disability and knowledge that such disability was caused by his employment occurred on November 13, 2019, applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations of section 5405. We will affirm the WCJ's March 27, 2020 Finding of Fact, accordingly.

  The applicant's compensable permanent disability and knowledge of its industrial cause occurred on November 13, 2019, within the statute of limitations period, so the claim is not barred.

  Official decision · page 17 →
• ADJ10418232 · 2022-04-07 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.17We are mindful that discerning legislative intent is fraught with difficulty when the statute does not clearly speak for itself. However, for all the reasons referenced above, we believe the most reasonable interpretation of section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) is that they are intended to apply only to athletes who cannot establish jurisdiction under section 3600.5, subdivision (a) or section 5305. Because it is undisputed that applicant was hired in California multiple times during the cumulative trauma injury period, we may properly exercise jurisdiction over his claim pursuant to those sections, and we will reverse the WCJ's finding to the contrary, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  The Board concluded that subdivisions (c) and (d) of Labor Code section 3600.5 do not apply because the applicant was hired in California multiple times during the injury period, establishing jurisdiction under subdivision (a) and section 5305.

  Official decision · page 17 →
• ADJ8309831 · 2021-11-23 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8The medical reports in the trial record are contradictory and confusing. As explained above, the doctors' opinions are not based on adequate information, and they appear to be the result of the physicians' speculation, conjecture, or guess. Again, based on our review of the trial record, it is clear that the record does not contain substantial evidence upon which the issue of injury AOE/COE can be made.4

  The WCJ's findings on injury AOE/COE were not supported by substantial evidence due to inconsistent and speculative medical opinions; the WCAB rescinded the prior decision and remanded for further proceedings with a new medical-legal report.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10807065 · 2021-09-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3applicant (deceased), through the Law Offices of Fred Fong, who represents several of the applicant's dependents, has filed a timely, verified and properly served reconsideration petition. This petition asserts that the WCJ erred in determining that decedent the applicant's fatal accident due to a fall from a carport roof was not attributable to the defendant employer's serious and willful misconduct within the meaning of Labor Code section 4453. Petitioner makes this contention on the following grounds:

  The petitioners failed to prove that the employer or a designated representative had knowledge of or recklessly disregarded safety order violations causing the applicant's death, as required by Labor Code section 4453.1. The evidence showed the applicant had autonomy over the unsafe acts and the employer had safety programs in place. The OSHA fines and settlement did not establish employer misconduct under the statute.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12284038 · 2021-03-26 · Redding District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant in pro per seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on January 5, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in pertinent part that defendant terminated applicant for good cause on June 5, 20191 while he was on modified work, that defendant would have continued to make modified work available to applicant had it not terminated him, that applicant's alleged lost wages for the period of June 6, 2019 through February 12, 2020 resulted from his own conduct leading to his termination and not his industrial injury, and that defendant did not terminate applicant in violation of Labor Code section 132a.2

  The evidence showed defendant terminated applicant for documented performance issues unrelated to the industrial injury, and applicant was aware of these issues and disciplinary process. The termination was found reasonable and not discriminatory under Labor Code section 132a.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 16.

• HERMANSON, GUZMAN & WANG
• PATRICO, HERMANSON & GUZMAN
• HERMANSON, GUZMAN & WANG, A P.C.
• HERMANSON, GUZMAN & WANG, A.P.C.
• Patrico, Hermanson & Guzman
• PATRICO HERMANSON & GUZMAN
• HERMANSON, GUZMAN AND WANG
• PATRICO HERMANSON GUZMAN
• Hermanson, Guzman & Wang
• HERMANSON, GUZMAN & WANG, PC
• PATRICO, HERMANSON, GUZMAN
• Patrico Hermanson Guzman

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.