Stockwell Harris

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Sacramento 8
• Van Nuys 8
• Los Angeles 5
• Oakland 5
• San Diego 5
• Marina del Rey 4
• San Francisco 4
• Santa Ana 4
• Bakersfield 3
• Fresno 3
• Redding 2
• Anaheim 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.

• 33 for the defense
• 10 for the applicant
• 9 returned for more record

Counted over 50 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.

• ADJ15071496 · 2025-08-18 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6III. Next, we observe that in the June 5, 2025 F&O, the WCJ failed to list any body parts with respect to his finding of injury AOE/COE in the Findings of Fact #1. At the expedited hearing, the parties stipulated the decedent sustained injury AOE/COE with body parts still in dispute. (MOH, May 28, 2025, p. 2:1-4.) However, failure to include at least one of the body parts injured in a stipulation to injury can lead to anomalous results, and it is a practice that should be avoided. At least one body part must be identified because a finding that an injury occurred without an identified body part may not be a legally enforceable AOE/COE finding. (Lab. Code, § 3600(a); South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297§ 298 [80

  The WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE was removed because no body parts were identified and no medical evidence supported injury to any body parts, making the injury finding legally unenforceable.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ7447035 · 2024-05-20 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10Here, the WCJ found that sanctions should issue as a result of lien claimant's willful failure to comply with the court's May 6, 2015 Findings and Order requiring it to forward all documentation showing the value of its services for IBR for roughly three years.

  The WCJ found lien claimant willfully failed to comply with court orders and engaged in bad faith tactics causing delays; the WCAB affirmed sanctions and costs were justified.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ9840500 · 2024-05-10 · Anaheim District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13Dr. Levy's Medical Reports Applicant is of the opinion that Dr. Levy's reports are not substantial evidence. The applicant believes that Dr. Levy's medical report denies due process to a non-English speaking injured worker. The Appeals Court determined that 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." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) A medical report is not substantial evidence unless it offers the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions. (Dr. does not state that 50 percent apportionment would be reasonable partially due to the normal progress of the preexisting injury). (Granado v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 33 Cal. Comp. Cases 647) Dr. Levy was the PQME for internal medicine. He authored eight (8) reports. He took a detailed history. He reviewed several medical reports, diagnostic tests and performed a comprehensive examination of the applicant throughout his medical reporting. Dr. Levy reviewed

  The medical reports of Dr. Levy and Dr. Mehta were found to be substantial evidence based on thorough examinations, detailed histories, and well-reasoned opinions.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ16953633 · 2024-03-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) filed an Objection to Order of Joinder of Zurich and Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) seeking review of the order issued by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) on January 3, 2023. Therein, the WCJ ordered Zurich joined as a party defendant in case no. ADJ16953635 and further ordered Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) dismissed as a party defendant.

  The WCJ's order joining Zurich as a party defendant was rescinded because it was issued without an adequate evidentiary record or due process, including lack of notice of intention and opportunity for hearing as required by law.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16819991 · 2023-11-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O)1 issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 22, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his back on May 25, 2021; and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.

  The WCJ's original decision was based on a finding that the injury date was inconsistent and that the QME's opinion was not based on an accurate history due to incomplete medical records. The WCAB found the record lacked substantial evidence and ordered further development of the record and a supplemental QME report.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10820377 · 2023-08-15 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, American Zurich Insurance Company, petitions for reconsideration of the Amended Joint Findings and Award (after Petition to Reopen) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on November 19, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed during the period January 1, 2007 to July 2, 2015, as a janitor by Oasis Outsourcing, Inc./ASC Process Systems sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his neck, back, right shoulder, wrists, upper extremities, upper digestive system and consisting of hypertension and hernia, resulting in permanent partial disability of 72% in Case ADJ10820377.

  The WCJ's finding of 72% permanent disability was challenged by defendant; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings to consider a Compromise and Release settlement, without ruling on the merits of the rating.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9387304 · 2023-01-20 · Oakland District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on June 16, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injury to his lumbar spine, head and psyche arising out of and in the course of his employment as a granite edge fabricator on September 23, 2013, by defendant, ADP Total Source, Inc./Duracite caused permanent partial disability of 45%.

  The WCJ found permanent partial disability of 45%, but the applicant contended for permanent total disability; the panel did not rule on the merits but remanded for consideration of the Compromise and Release.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9388767 · 2022-12-28 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Based upon applicant's credible testimony and the medical reports of Dr. Michael Kimball, M.D., Dr. Peter Hanson, M.D. and Dr. John Lane, M.D., various dates, it is found that applicant sustained injury to his left knee, right knee, right hip, neck and back arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period 2003 to and including January 20, 2017. The date of injury pursuant to Labor Code Section 5412 is discussed below. THERE IS ONLY ONE CONTINUOUS TRAUMA PERIOD

  The continuous trauma injury to left knee, right knee, right hip, neck, and back was found compensable with one continuous trauma period and the date of injury as April 1, 2014. Liability was placed on the petitioner as the sole carrier during the one-year period following the date of injury.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10590450 · 2022-11-10 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.4weeks for aggregate temporary disability payments per section 4656(c)(2). (Lab. Code, § 4656(c)(2).)3 The medical record reflects that his orthopedic condition was considered permanent and stationary as of June 21, 2017 per the orthopedic QME Dr. Schwarz. The WCJ explained in her Opinion on Decision that she based her decision regarding temporary disability and the permanent and stationary date on Dr. Schwarz's reporting. It appears that she inadvertently did not include the full year for the temporary disability end date in Finding of Fact No. 5 and also inadvertently stated 2021 as the permanent and stationary date in Finding of Fact No. 6.4 The record supports a finding that applicant was temporarily totally disabled from September 27, 2016 through June 20, 2017, with June 21, 2017 as the date his condition became permanent and stationary. We will consequently amend the F&A to reflect the correct temporary disability period and permanent and stationary date.

  The medical record, specifically the orthopedic QME Dr. Schwarz, supports that applicant was temporarily totally disabled from September 27, 2016 through June 20, 2017, and the statutory cap of 104 weeks applies.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ15071496 · 2022-09-21Jurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's record of proceedings is maintained in the adjudication file and consists of: the pleadings, minutes of hearing and summary of evidence, transcripts, if prepared and filed, proofs of service, evidence received in the course of a hearing, exhibits marked but not received in evidence, notices, petitions, briefs, findings, orders, decisions and awards, and the arbitrator's file, if any. Each of these documents is part of the record of proceedings, whether maintained in paper or electronic form. Documents that are in the adjudication file but have not been received or offered in evidence are not part of the record of proceedings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10803.) Here, we are unable to review and/or address the merits of the Petition because there is no trial record. In the Report the WCJ refers to declarations submitted by applicant, but as noted, there is no trial record and the declarations are not evidence. Again, there are no exhibits offered and/or admitted into evidence. It is well established that any award, order or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp.

  There was no adequate trial record or admitted evidence to support the WCJ's order; substantial evidence is required for any order or decision.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14797855 · 2022-09-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The continuous trauma is pled August 4, 2008 through April 8, 2001. The applicant testified at trial, on or about April 8, 2021, Dr. James Kwok gave her work restrictions. (MOH/SOE, page 3, lines 12, 13) This is consistent with Joint Exhibit 1, the report of Dr. James Kwok dated April 8, 2021. (eams number 75524196) the applicant testified thereafter, she was still going into work, but doing modified work "for about a week," doing modified duties "until approximately April 15 or 16." She was working at CTC Fit Monitoring and IAS (Inmate Answering Services). (MOH/SOE, page 3, lines 17 - 18). On cross-examination, the witness confirmed she did work "between April 8, to April 15." ((MOH/SOE, page 5, line 15)

  The Board affirmed the WCJ's award of temporary disability from April 8, 2021 through June 24, 2021, despite defendant's argument for a later start date, because the applicant testified to working modified duties during April 8-15, 2021 but did not amend the claim or provide evidence to alter the period.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9685765 · 2022-05-31 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The disputed decision in this matter only involves discovery. Accordingly, this is not a final decision upon which relief from the Appeals Board may be sought. Pursuant to the express language of section 3201.5(a)(1), applicant may only seek review from the Appeals Board of a final decision by the arbitrator.

  The challenged order was not a final order; only final orders in carve-out cases are reviewable by the Appeals Board.

  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.

• STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WOOLVERTON & HELPHREY
• STOCKWELL HARRIS
• STOCKWELL HARRIS WOOLVERTON & HELPHREY
• Stockwell Harris
• Stockwell Harris Woolverton & Helphrey
• LAW OFFICES OF GREENBERG STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WOOLVERTON & FOX
• STOCKWELL, HARRIS,WOOLVERTON & HELPHREY.APC
• STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WOOL YERTON & HELPHREY
• Stockwell, Harris, Woolverton & Helphrey
• STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WOOLVERTON, HELPHREY
• Stockwell, Harris, Widom & Woolverton
• STOCKWELL HARRIS VENTURA

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.