California WCABClaims administrator
JT2 Integrated Resources
JT2 Integrated Resources is named as a claims administrator in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Apportionment (2) and Discrimination under Labor Code §132a (1). Defense most often ran through Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen (3). The employer appearing most often is City of Oakland (3). The office that heard the most of them is Oakland.
- Decisions
- 5
- Years
- 2022–2026
- Issues disputed
- 2
- District offices
- 2
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
3 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
- City of Oakland3
- National Courier Systems2
- Oakland Unified School District2
Where they appear
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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.
Counted over 5 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work.
Decisions
Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.
- ADJ8833300 · 2026-07-31 · San Francisco District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on June 16, 2021, by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that defendant did not violate Labor Code section 132a and ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his Labor Code section 132a petition. Applicant contends that he met his burden to establish a prima facie claim that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a and that defendant did not meet its burden to show a reasonable business necessity for its actions. We have received an Answer from defendant. We received a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) from the WCJ, recommending that we deny reconsideration. We issued an order granting reconsideration pending further review of the entire record. 1 Thereafter, the parties successfully participated in voluntary mediation at the Appeals Board. Subsequently, the parties advised that a proposed settlement had been reached. In order to expedite review and approval of the parties’ settlement agreement, we will rescind the June 16, 2021 Findings and Order and return this matter to the trial level to consider the settlement. The assigned WCJ may conduct such further proceedings as is deemed appropriate.
The WCJ found no violation of Labor Code section 132a and the Appeals Board did not rule on the merits but rescinded the prior order and returned the matter for settlement consideration.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ3762315 · 2024-03-29 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Oakland filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award of May 19, 2023. Oakland contends that apportionment between the injuries, five years apart and at two different employers, is mandated by Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1535 [74 Cal.Comp.Cases 113 ("Benson"). Oakland alleges that such apportionment is supported by Dr. Mandell, the Agreed Medical Evaluator ("AME") in orthopedics, who apportioned liability equally between the injuries based on reasonable medical probability, and that Dr. Mandell's opinion is substantial evidence because he performed a comprehensive medical evaluation and explained each of the distinct industrial and non-industrial factors. Finally, Oakland alleges that "the opinion of the WCJ results in administrative chaos where CIGA and the City of Oakland have no basis to determine liability for payment of the award if apportionment between the injuries cannot be determined."
The WCJ's rejection of Dr. Mandell's apportionment opinion was upheld because the opinion was found to be speculative, inconsistent, and lacking substantial evidence, and the WCAB is not bound by the AME's opinion.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ3762315 · 2022-06-21 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentremanded
Determinative passage · p.2The City of Oakland ("petitioner") filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. Petitioner contends, in substance, that the WCJ erred in rejecting the apportionment opinion of Dr. Mandell, the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) in orthopedics, who apportioned liability to three separate and distinct injuries, and to non-industrial causes. Petitioner further contends that the WCJ erred in relying on a single document to increase applicant's temporary disability rate for all payments after 2001, that the document is not substantial evidence because it included the range of pay for applicant's position eighteen years after the time of injury, and that the parties limited the time period in dispute to a single year.
The WCJ rejected apportionment despite the AME Dr. Mandell's opinion, but the WCAB found the WCJ did not properly apply the law and must revisit apportionment with further development of the record.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ3370297 · 2024-05-31 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, filed a Petition for Reconsideration on April 2, 2024 and appears to have refiled the petition on April 15, 2024. We have reviewed the Petition for Reconsideration, defendant's Answer, and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss the petition as successive. We will also deny it to the extent it seeks to disqualify the WCJ.
The petition was dismissed as successive because the applicant failed to show new aggrievement and the disqualification request was denied for lack of factual basis under the applicable legal standards.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ3370297 · 2024-01-19 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The petition in this matter was filed on November 20, 2023. This was more than 25 days
The petition was filed more than 25 days after the decision, making it untimely under the jurisdictional time limit for reconsideration petitions.
Official decision · page 2 →
Also recorded as
The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.
- JT2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES
- JT2 Integrated Resources
Is this your company and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this claims administrator 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.