Benthale, McKibbin & McKnight

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Sacramento 3
• Fresno 2
• Oakland 2
• Stockton 2
• Anaheim 1
• Long Beach 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Pomona 1
• Van Nuys 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.

• 8 for the defense
• 3 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 13 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.

• ADJ10388154 · 2026-02-19 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11Here, the WCJ determined applicant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, ascribing a section 5412 date of injury of September 28, 2014, based upon an assumption that applicant gleaned the requisite disability and knowledge of his continuous trauma injury based upon the service of the AME Dr. Uppal's medical report of September 4, 2014 to his attorney, however, an applicant's knowledge cannot necessarily be presumed based solely upon written

  The WCJ's finding of a September 28, 2014 date of injury under section 5412 was rejected because applicant lacked knowledge of the injury on that date; medical treatment was last provided on June 29, 2015, tolling the statute of limitations; thus, the claim was not barred and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ4406140 · 2023-07-13 · Los Angeles District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.96. The Doctrine of Laches The equitable doctrine of laches may apply in workers' compensation proceedings. (See, e.g., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411]; Truck Ins. Exchange v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 394 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 685] (Kwok).) "The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay." (Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 351, 359-360, see also Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 77.) In addition, defendants must come to the determination with clean hands, and not be found to have participated in the delay. (See Kwok, supra.) In this instance, the sole basis for the WCJ's decision to reject applicant's attorneys' claims under sections 5813, 5800, 5814, and 5814.5 was that defendant successfully demonstrated the elements of laches. Upon review, we disagree with the WCJ's determination. With respect to delay, the WCJ found that the seventeen-year delay in requesting payment of the 5710 fees and bringing the Petition for Penalties was unreasonably long, and we do not

  The Appeals Board found that the defense of laches did not apply because defendant did not demonstrate prejudice or clean hands, and defendant's delay was partly due to its own inaction; therefore, the WCJ's laches finding was rescinded and penalties and fees were awarded accordingly.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ7882792 · 2023-03-09 · Marina del Rey District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The focus of Defendant's argument is challenging the judge's decision to rely on the findings of Applicant's vocational expert Laura Wilson rather than the findings of Defendant's vocational expert Amy Koellner.

  The judge found Applicant's vocational expert Laura Wilson more persuasive and better reasoned than Defendant's expert Amy Koellner, supporting the 100% permanent disability finding.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ1718407 · 2022-01-20 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5In this case, it appears that the arbitrator erroneously believed that because insurers are jointly and severally liable for certain benefits, he could not apportion liability for those benefits in a contribution proceeding. In fact, the reason contribution proceedings exist is to allow an applicant to receive prompt payment of benefits from an elected insurer by allowing the elected insurer to promptly recover from other insurers after the applicant's case is resolved. By assigning 1/3 liability for certain benefits to each insurer rather than addressing the proportional liability of each insurer, the arbitrator did not address the contribution issues submitted to him.

  The record was inadequate to address the merits; the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to create a proper record and determine all issues raised by the parties.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ117564 · 2026-01-20 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant David Silver, M.D., seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 31, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that: the Appeals Board previously found that applicant did not sustain injury in the form of fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome and reflex sympathetic dystrophy;1 lien claimant provided treatment to applicant for those non-industrial conditions; defendant has no liability for payment for the treatment of these non-industrial body parts or conditions; and the issues of penalties are moot. She ordered that the lien was dismissed.

  The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration but deferred the final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1504028 · 2025-10-09 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as there is presently no order or decision of the WCJ as to the issue raised by lien claimant, and thus, the issue is not ripe for adjudication. Upon return the parties may raise any objections to any rulings made at trial regarding witness testimony and may thereafter seek appropriate relief if they are aggrieved.

  The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because there was no order or decision from the WCJ on the issue raised, making it not ripe for adjudication.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9800810 · 2025-06-13 · Sacramento District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5On the existing record it is not possible to establish which injury, or injuries, caused the current need for treatment to the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder. Although medical care was awarded for body parts in both ADJ3318010 and ADJ9800810, it is necessary to determine the current cause of treatment for each body part.

  The Board found that the existing record did not contain substantial medical opinions to establish which injury caused the current need for treatment for the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder, and that further medical development was necessary before determining joint and several liability and administration of claims.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9447100 · 2024-11-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on May 21, 2024, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so the Board dismissed it.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ448540 · 2023-04-25 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the Minutes of Hearing and Order Consolidating issued on December 15, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9176715 · 2022-09-23 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on October 27, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9584702 · 2021-07-16 · Stockton District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition is untimely and must be dismissed.

  The petition for reconsideration was filed beyond the 25-day deadline after the WCJ's decision was served, making it untimely and subject to dismissal.

  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.

• BENTHALE, MCKIBBIN & MCKNIGHT
• Benthale, McKibbin & McKnight
• BENTHALE, McKIBBIN & McKNIGHT
• BENTHALE MCKIBBIN & MCKNIGHT
• Benthale, McKibbin, McKnight & Bitz
• BENTHALE, McKIBBIN, McKNIGHT & BITZ

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.