California WCABLaw firm
Arns Davis Law
Arns Davis Law is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (4), Apportionment (1) and Penalties under Labor Code §5814 (1). They were heard most often at San Francisco, then Oakland. The firm it meets most often is Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (2).
- Decisions
- 8
- Years
- 2023–2026
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 2
Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 of 7 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
2 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
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 firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.
Counted over 7 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.
- ADJ18543951 · 2025-12-09 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4the WCJ's concerns regarding the lack of contemporaneous reporting as to the alleged mechanism of injury, but following a review of the entire record, determined that "the QME's medical-legal determination as supported in the medical record and applicant's unchallenged trial testimony supports a finding of industrial injury, to a preponderance of the evidence." (Id. at p. 11.)
The WCAB found that the QME's medical-legal determination, supported by medical records and applicant's unchallenged trial testimony, constituted substantial evidence establishing injury AOE/COE to the left knee on September 30, 2023, by a preponderance of the evidence.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ18543951 · 2025-08-29 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Here, we find a similar analysis is warranted. We observe in the first instance that applicant's allegation of industrial injury finds support in the medical-legal analysis of QME Dr. Retodo. The QME has reviewed medical records relevant to applicant's 2014 left and 2015 right knee injuries, and has further reviewed diagnostic MRI studies of April 12, 2024, and has undertaken a competent clinical evaluation of applicant. Following a review of more than 2,500 pages of relevant medical and diagnostic records, the QME concludes that "in reviewing the applicant's current complaints, history, physical exam findings, and submitted medical records and diagnostic study, it is my opinion, with a reasonable medical probability, that the applicant did sustain a specific industrial injury to the left knee on [September 30, 2023], while working for San Francisco Municipal Railway. He therefore should be entitled to receive the appropriate diagnostics and treatment in regard to his industrial injury." (Ex. 1, Report of Albert Retodo, M.D., dated April 15, 2024, at p. 8.)
The WCAB found that the QME's medical opinion supported injury AOE/COE to the left knee, and that the applicant's unchallenged trial testimony and medical evidence met the burden of proof despite the WCJ's contrary credibility findings.
Official decision · page 9 → - ADJ17793590 · 2024-09-23 · San Francisco District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4It can certainly be presumed that defendant was prejudiced by applicant waiting 15 years from the claimed date of injury to file a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Applicant could not recall the names of coworkers who he believed witnessed the injury, nor could he recall the names of doctors or facilities from which he claimed to have he sought medical treatment. However, defendant presented no evidence as to how it was prejudiced by the delay in filing a claim. Instead, they are relying on the undersigned to infer prejudice. "Prejudice is not presumed, it must be affirmatively demonstrated." (Ragan v. City of Hawthorne (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1361, 1367.) As defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate it was prejudiced by the applicant's failure to timely file a claim, I find that defendant has not meet its burden of proof that this claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.
Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from delay, so the claim is not barred by laches.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ13706815 · 2024-05-14 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6I have carefully reviewed and considered the evidence submitted to me, including the medical records in evidence, as well as applicant's testimony at trial. In view of the overall record, I find that applicant has not met his burden of proof with regard to injury AOE/COE. See Mendoza v. Huntington Hospital (2010) 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 634, 644 ["it is the employee's burden to prove industrial causation, not the defendant's burden to disprove causation..]. I have reached this conclusion due to the lack of medical support of applicant's claim as well as due to the questionable factual basis for the claim. The only medical reports in evidence are the three reports of the QME, Dr. Banks, joint exhibits 1 through 3. In his final report, joint exhibit 3, Dr.
Applicant did not meet burden of proof for industrial injury due to lack of substantial medical evidence and credibility concerns; QME Dr. Banks found medical evidence insufficient to substantiate injury claim; no witness testimony corroborated applicant's injury report.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ16041647 · 2023-10-09 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Based on the medical exhibits entered into evidence applicant has met his burden of proof.
Applicant met burden of proof for industrial cumulative trauma injury to right shoulder during employment period ending 2/26/2020.
Official decision · page 9 → - ADJ11096892 · 2026-04-24 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The Appeals Board found no abuse of discretion by the WCJ in awarding lien claimant a portion of attorney fees and denying sanctions, and the petition did not state grounds for reconsideration under Labor Code section 5903.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ19087961 · 2026-01-12 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on removal, a proposed settlement has been reached. Accordingly, the petition for removal is now moot, and we will dismiss the petition.
The petition for removal became moot due to a proposed settlement reached while the matter was pending.
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.
- ARNS DAVIS LAW
- Arns Davis Law
- ARNS DAVIS LAW FIRM
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.