California WCABLaw firm

Purinton Law

Purinton Law is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Apportionment (3), AOE/COE (1) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Long Beach, then Marina del Rey.

Decisions: 9
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 6

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

Sedgwick Claims Management Services5
Falls Lake Insurance Company2
ACE American Insurance Company1
Albertson$ Holdings, LLC1
Cypress Insurance Company1
Helsman Management Rocklin1
Safety National Insurance Company1
Segwick Claims Management Services, INC.1

Where they appear

Long Beach 2
Marina del Rey 2
Van Nuys 2
Los Angeles 1
San Diego 1
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.

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

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.

ADJ14149688 · 2026-07-27 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.12Chen’s opinion that all treatment rendered after the March 6, 2021 surveillance is nonindustrial, and that there is no need for future medical care for the neck and back. We emphasize the point made by the WCJ that this opinion amounts to impermissible apportionment of medical treatment. If the need for medical treatment is partially caused by an applicant’s industrial injury, an employer must pay all the injured worker’s reasonable medical expenses. (Granado v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 399, [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647].) An injured worker is entitled to medical care for a non-industrial condition that must be treated in order to cure or relieve the effects of an industrial injury. (Bolton, supra, 34 Cal.3d 159.) Dr. Chen does not indicate any medical basis for cutting off industrial liability for medical treatment that he opined was warranted up to the point of the March 2021 surveillance. Likewise, his opinion still states that the injuries are 100% industrial. He is consistent that the industrial motor vehicle accident caused injury to the cervical and lumbar spines. There is no evidence anywhere in the record of an intervening event that would sever causation for ongoing care. Moreover, the spine is listed in diagnoses from the beginning of the medical record. Again, the opinion is not supported, is contradictory, and is not substantial.
The QME's opinion cutting off medical care after March 6, 2021 was found to be an impermissible apportionment and not supported by substantial evidence, leading to remand for further development.
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ11290614 · 2023-06-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentremanded
Determinative passage · p.3Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Also, the physician must explain the nature of the other factors, how and why those factors are causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, and how and why those factors are responsible for the percentage of disability assigned by the physician. (Id. at 621.) Here, when addressing apportionment of applicant's right knee disability Dr. Craemer stated, "For the right knee, apportionment is 50% to the 6/9/13 injury and 50% to the continuous trauma." (Joint Exh. 1, p. 17.) However, he did not identify the factors of permanent disability
Dr. Craemer's opinion on apportionment did not constitute substantial evidence because he failed to explain the basis for attributing 50% of the right knee disability to the 2013 injury and 50% to cumulative trauma; the issue is deferred for further development of the record.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ8599329 · 2022-06-21 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10In conclusion, defendant did not meet its burden of proving apportionment of permanent disability to the lumbar spine is warranted. Therefore, we will affirm the F&A.
Defendant failed to meet burden of proving apportionment to the 2016 non-industrial motor vehicle accident or prior industrial injury due to inadequate medical evidence and lack of proof of overlap with prior disability.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ12859017 · 2021-12-06 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed
Determinative passage · p.2*** 8. It is found that defendant is not entitled to credit for overpayment of temporary disability for the period from December 8, 2020 through February 15, 2021. It is found that defendant is entitled to credit for overpayment of temporary disability for the period February 16, 2021 through March 1, 2021.
Defendant not entitled to credit for overpayment of temporary disability from 12/8/2020 to 2/15/2021 because treating physician reports indicated partial disability and defendant did not timely object to these reports under LC 4062; credit allowed from 2/16/2021 to 3/1/2021 based on AME report finding permanent and stationary status as of 2/15/2021.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11315552 · 2024-12-11 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal in response to an Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) at a Status Conference (Conference) on January 25, 2024. At the Conference, the WCJ issued an Order denying defendant's petition to quash the deposition of the former claims examiner on applicant's case, as well as an Order allowing defendant to depose applicant's treating physician, with the condition that the physician's deposition be set in front of the WCJ.
The WCAB found that the WCJ's order denying the petition to quash was issued without a proper record or hearing, violating due process rights and lacking substantial evidence support, thus warranting removal and rescission of the order.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14533242 · 2022-01-14 · Los Angeles 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 found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3362746 · 2021-12-03 · Long Beach District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6"The Defendants agree to be responsible for the cost of future medical care in equal shares of 50% each to be administered by Vons/Comco."
The WCJ and WCAB found that the Joint Award of 10/23/1990, which stipulated 50% liability for future medical care costs to each defendant, remains enforceable against Vons despite a subsequent Compromise & Release between Vons and the applicant that did not include Armstrong and did not extinguish Vons' liability.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ3362746 · 2021-02-26 · Long Beach District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.3In this case, it is unclear whether Vons' arguments concerning the statute of limitations, laches, and waiver were formally raised as issues at trial. Therefore, we will return this matter to the trial level for the parties to clarify issues submitted for adjudication and to create a complete record.
The Board found that the issues concerning statute of limitations, laches, and waiver were not clearly raised at trial and the record was incomplete, so the matter was returned to the trial level for clarification and further proceedings.
Official decision · page 3 →

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.

PURINTON LAW
Purinton Law

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

4 for the defense

3 returned for more record

2 for the applicant

Decisions

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

ADJ14149688 · 2026-07-27 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

Determinative passage · p.12Chen’s opinion that all treatment rendered after the March 6, 2021 surveillance is nonindustrial, and that there is no need for future medical care for the neck and back. We emphasize the point made by the WCJ that this opinion amounts to impermissible apportionment of medical treatment. If the need for medical treatment is partially caused by an applicant’s industrial injury, an employer must pay all the injured worker’s reasonable medical expenses. (Granado v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 399, [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647].) An injured worker is entitled to medical care for a non-industrial condition that must be treated in order to cure or relieve the effects of an industrial injury. (Bolton, supra, 34 Cal.3d 159.) Dr. Chen does not indicate any medical basis for cutting off industrial liability for medical treatment that he opined was warranted up to the point of the March 2021 surveillance. Likewise, his opinion still states that the injuries are 100% industrial. He is consistent that the industrial motor vehicle accident caused injury to the cervical and lumbar spines. There is no evidence anywhere in the record of an intervening event that would sever causation for ongoing care. Moreover, the spine is listed in diagnoses from the beginning of the medical record. Again, the opinion is not supported, is contradictory, and is not substantial.

The QME's opinion cutting off medical care after March 6, 2021 was found to be an impermissible apportionment and not supported by substantial evidence, leading to remand for further development.

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ11290614 · 2023-06-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentremanded

Determinative passage · p.3Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Also, the physician must explain the nature of the other factors, how and why those factors are causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, and how and why those factors are responsible for the percentage of disability assigned by the physician. (Id. at 621.) Here, when addressing apportionment of applicant's right knee disability Dr. Craemer stated, "For the right knee, apportionment is 50% to the 6/9/13 injury and 50% to the continuous trauma." (Joint Exh. 1, p. 17.) However, he did not identify the factors of permanent disability

Dr. Craemer's opinion on apportionment did not constitute substantial evidence because he failed to explain the basis for attributing 50% of the right knee disability to the 2013 injury and 50% to cumulative trauma; the issue is deferred for further development of the record.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ8599329 · 2022-06-21 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.10In conclusion, defendant did not meet its burden of proving apportionment of permanent disability to the lumbar spine is warranted. Therefore, we will affirm the F&A.

Defendant failed to meet burden of proving apportionment to the 2016 non-industrial motor vehicle accident or prior industrial injury due to inadequate medical evidence and lack of proof of overlap with prior disability.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ12859017 · 2021-12-06 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

Determinative passage · p.2*** 8. It is found that defendant is not entitled to credit for overpayment of temporary disability for the period from December 8, 2020 through February 15, 2021. It is found that defendant is entitled to credit for overpayment of temporary disability for the period February 16, 2021 through March 1, 2021.

Defendant not entitled to credit for overpayment of temporary disability from 12/8/2020 to 2/15/2021 because treating physician reports indicated partial disability and defendant did not timely object to these reports under LC 4062; credit allowed from 2/16/2021 to 3/1/2021 based on AME report finding permanent and stationary status as of 2/15/2021.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11315552 · 2024-12-11 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal in response to an Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) at a Status Conference (Conference) on January 25, 2024. At the Conference, the WCJ issued an Order denying defendant's petition to quash the deposition of the former claims examiner on applicant's case, as well as an Order allowing defendant to depose applicant's treating physician, with the condition that the physician's deposition be set in front of the WCJ.

The WCAB found that the WCJ's order denying the petition to quash was issued without a proper record or hearing, violating due process rights and lacking substantial evidence support, thus warranting removal and rescission of the order.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14533242 · 2022-01-14 · Los Angeles 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 found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3362746 · 2021-12-03 · Long Beach District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6"The Defendants agree to be responsible for the cost of future medical care in equal shares of 50% each to be administered by Vons/Comco."

The WCJ and WCAB found that the Joint Award of 10/23/1990, which stipulated 50% liability for future medical care costs to each defendant, remains enforceable against Vons despite a subsequent Compromise & Release between Vons and the applicant that did not include Armstrong and did not extinguish Vons' liability.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ3362746 · 2021-02-26 · Long Beach District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

Determinative passage · p.3In this case, it is unclear whether Vons' arguments concerning the statute of limitations, laches, and waiver were formally raised as issues at trial. Therefore, we will return this matter to the trial level for the parties to clarify issues submitted for adjudication and to create a complete record.

The Board found that the issues concerning statute of limitations, laches, and waiver were not clearly raised at trial and the record was incomplete, so the matter was returned to the trial level for clarification and further proceedings.

Official decision · page 3 →