California WCABLaw firm

Boxer & Gerson

Boxer & Gerson is named in 56 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (14), Permanent disability rating (9) and Temporary disability (9). They were heard most often at Oakland, then San Jose. The firm it meets most often is RTGR Law LLP (6).

Decisions: 56
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 13
District offices: 5

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 43 of 46 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.

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

46 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

23 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 51
San Jose 2
Sacramento 1
San Francisco 1
Santa Rosa 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.

32 for the applicant
16 for the defense
7 returned for more record

Counted over 52 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.

ADJ16112682 · 2026-05-19 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ's opinion found that apportionment was not appropriately addressed per the standards outlined in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 611 (en banc) because the physician did not clearly outline the pre-existing conditions nor did he adequately address with particularity how those conditions caused the current impairment. He accepted the QME's opinion that the impairment to the right and left shoulder should be added instead of combined. The WCJ also found that the correct occupational code is 330 based on the job description provided (Defendant's Exhibit A.)
The WCJ found that the QME Dr. Hughes did not adequately explain the apportionment of pre-existing conditions to the current impairment as required by Escobedo, and thus rejected the apportionment and rated permanent disability at 76% without apportionment based on Dr. Reiter's opinion.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10715566 · 2026-03-19 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings & Award (F&A) issued on September 13, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial injury while employed by defendant on March 19, 2014 to her low back, resulting in 51% permanent disability.
The WCAB found that the vocational expert opinion supporting 100% permanent disability was substantial evidence, while the apportionment opinion of PQME Dr. Anderson was speculative and legally insufficient, leading to an amendment of the permanent disability rating to 100%.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17517591 · 2026-03-03 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of November 14, 2025, wherein it was found that while employed on June 26, 2021 as a handyman, applicant sustained industrial injury to his right knee, right leg, left hip, and low back causing permanent total (100%) disability. as a maintenance technician, applicant sustained industrial injury to the right hand, right arm, and psyche, causing permanent total (100%) disability. In finding permanent total disability, the WCJ relied on the reporting of vocational expert Frank P. Diaz, who opined that applicant's industrial injury precluded applicant from vocational rehabilitation or from employment in the open labor market.
The WCJ's findings of permanent total disability were supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Anderson and vocational expert Frank Diaz, whose reports were found credible and compliant with regulatory requirements. Defendant's due process argument for a rebuttal vocational report was rejected as untimely and unsupported.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19436133 · 2025-10-06 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Here, PQME Dr. Konovalenko credibly found the "cause of the applicant's current injuries, impairments and disabilities to the neck are attributable to the cumulative industrial injury which occurred from 2020 through June 18, 2024. The described mechanism of injury is consistent with an appropriate force to result in the above listed industrial diagnoses." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 19.) "The applicant has not reached maximal medical improvement and is not yet permanent and stationary for any injury being evaluated." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.) "The applicant's work status is hereafter deferred to the primary treating physician until he has reached maximum medical improvement." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.)
PQME Dr. Konovalenko's well-reasoned medical opinion diagnosing myofascial pain syndrome and attributing the injury to cumulative industrial trauma was substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the neck.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ8034870 · 2025-06-17 · Oakland District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813deferred
Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&A and substitute findings that defer the issues of whether applicant sustained injury to the psyche, the amount of permanent disability, and attorney's fees; and we will return the matter to the trial level further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Attorney fees issue deferred pending further proceedings.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14547470 · 2025-04-17 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The matter thereafter stood submitted, and on January 13, 2021, the WCA issued his Opinion and Order finding that applicant was not entitled to an examination with a QME specializing in either the field of orthopedic or occupational medicine.
The Appeals Board found that the WCA erred in denying the applicant a QME examination based on the ADR rules, as the rules do not abrogate the WCA's authority to appoint a medical examiner and due process requires a meaningful consideration of the merits.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ13108823 · 2025-03-10 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 26, 2024, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the head, neck, right shoulder, right knee, or psychiatric injury, and that the reporting by Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Peter J. Mandell, M.D., is not substantial medical evidence. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her workers' compensation claim.
The WCAB found that the WCJ's initial rejection of the AME's medical opinion was not supported by substantial evidence and that further development of the medical record was necessary to determine industrial causation. The WCAB granted reconsideration and returned the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17318401 · 2025-03-04 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.8Here, as stated by the WCJ in the Report, the finding of injury to the neck, spine, and bilateral shoulders in the F&A is based upon applicant's testimony as to how the injury occurred and the fact that she sought emergency room treatment immediately. (Report, p. 5.) Under the foregoing authorities, however, substantial medical evidence is required to establish injury AOE/COE. Therefore, we will evaluate QME Dr. Patel's reporting to determine whether the injury finding is supported by substantial medical evidence.
The WCAB found that the WCJ's injury finding was based on applicant's testimony and immediate emergency room treatment, but substantial medical evidence was required. Dr. Patel's reports were reviewed and found to be based on pertinent facts and adequate examination but unclear as to adequate medical history, partly due to defendant restricting medical records review. The Board concluded further development of the record was necessary to determine if Dr. Patel's opinion was based on adequate medical history.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ16741292 · 2025-02-03 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Defendant contends that applicant did not sustain an amputation hence is not eligible for the exception to the 104 week rule because the portion of the finger that was amputated was re- attached. I disagree with defendant's position.
The applicant sustained an amputation of part of his left index finger despite replantation surgery, which qualifies for the extended temporary disability benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c). Medical evidence from Dr. Chen and Dr. Jamasbi supports that the applicant is totally temporarily disabled and entitled to benefits.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ8454650 · 2025-01-24 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7(Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 621, emphasis added.) Here, Dr. Mahawar's medical reporting is not substantial medical evidence on the issue of
The medical opinion on apportionment was found speculative and not substantial evidence; defendant did not meet burden to prove apportionment; therefore, apportionment was invalid and rejected.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ15186514 · 2024-12-13 · Oakland District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.16As to the sufficiency of Dr. Jacks 4/18/2022 IME Report, as summarized herein above, I find it qualifies as substantial medical evidence regarding his diagnosis of Applicant's PTSD. He noted references in the medical records after the September 23, 2019 date listing diagnoses of PTSD. He reviewed several of the work-related traumatic events experienced by Applicant as a Firefighter with the Richmond Fire Department, and found a link between the September 2019 school shooting incident, and subsequent work traumas, and the development of Applicant's PTSD symptomology.
The Board found Dr. Jacks' report to be thorough, based on extensive psychiatric consultation, psychological testing, and review of medical records, constituting substantial evidence supporting the PTSD diagnosis and industrial causation, while Dr. Keins' report was found unsubstantial due to lack of medical record review and untimely supplemental report.
Official decision · page 16 →
ADJ14425169 · 2024-11-22 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of August 12, 2024, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to the kidney while employed during a cumulative period ending February 28, 2021. The WCJ thus ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her workers' compensation claim.
The WCJ's original decision was rescinded because the record was insufficient to establish industrial injury; the case was remanded for further development including additional medical reports addressing causation specifically related to the applicant's diagnosed condition and chemical exposures.
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.

BOXER & GERSON
Boxer & Gerson
BOXER & GERSON, LLP
BOXER GERSON
Boxer & Gerson, LLP
Boxer Gerson Olson Oakland
BOXER GERSON OAKLAND
BOXER & GERSON LLP
Boxer Gerson

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 →

Boxer & Gerson

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

32 for the applicant

16 for the defense

7 returned for more record

Decisions

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

ADJ16112682 · 2026-05-19 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ's opinion found that apportionment was not appropriately addressed per the standards outlined in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 611 (en banc) because the physician did not clearly outline the pre-existing conditions nor did he adequately address with particularity how those conditions caused the current impairment. He accepted the QME's opinion that the impairment to the right and left shoulder should be added instead of combined. The WCJ also found that the correct occupational code is 330 based on the job description provided (Defendant's Exhibit A.)

The WCJ found that the QME Dr. Hughes did not adequately explain the apportionment of pre-existing conditions to the current impairment as required by Escobedo, and thus rejected the apportionment and rated permanent disability at 76% without apportionment based on Dr. Reiter's opinion.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10715566 · 2026-03-19 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings & Award (F&A) issued on September 13, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial injury while employed by defendant on March 19, 2014 to her low back, resulting in 51% permanent disability.

The WCAB found that the vocational expert opinion supporting 100% permanent disability was substantial evidence, while the apportionment opinion of PQME Dr. Anderson was speculative and legally insufficient, leading to an amendment of the permanent disability rating to 100%.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17517591 · 2026-03-03 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of November 14, 2025, wherein it was found that while employed on June 26, 2021 as a handyman, applicant sustained industrial injury to his right knee, right leg, left hip, and low back causing permanent total (100%) disability. as a maintenance technician, applicant sustained industrial injury to the right hand, right arm, and psyche, causing permanent total (100%) disability. In finding permanent total disability, the WCJ relied on the reporting of vocational expert Frank P. Diaz, who opined that applicant's industrial injury precluded applicant from vocational rehabilitation or from employment in the open labor market.

The WCJ's findings of permanent total disability were supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Anderson and vocational expert Frank Diaz, whose reports were found credible and compliant with regulatory requirements. Defendant's due process argument for a rebuttal vocational report was rejected as untimely and unsupported.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19436133 · 2025-10-06 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Here, PQME Dr. Konovalenko credibly found the "cause of the applicant's current injuries, impairments and disabilities to the neck are attributable to the cumulative industrial injury which occurred from 2020 through June 18, 2024. The described mechanism of injury is consistent with an appropriate force to result in the above listed industrial diagnoses." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 19.) "The applicant has not reached maximal medical improvement and is not yet permanent and stationary for any injury being evaluated." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.) "The applicant's work status is hereafter deferred to the primary treating physician until he has reached maximum medical improvement." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.)

PQME Dr. Konovalenko's well-reasoned medical opinion diagnosing myofascial pain syndrome and attributing the injury to cumulative industrial trauma was substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the neck.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ8034870 · 2025-06-17 · Oakland District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813deferred

Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&A and substitute findings that defer the issues of whether applicant sustained injury to the psyche, the amount of permanent disability, and attorney's fees; and we will return the matter to the trial level further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Attorney fees issue deferred pending further proceedings.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14547470 · 2025-04-17 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The matter thereafter stood submitted, and on January 13, 2021, the WCA issued his Opinion and Order finding that applicant was not entitled to an examination with a QME specializing in either the field of orthopedic or occupational medicine.

The Appeals Board found that the WCA erred in denying the applicant a QME examination based on the ADR rules, as the rules do not abrogate the WCA's authority to appoint a medical examiner and due process requires a meaningful consideration of the merits.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ13108823 · 2025-03-10 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 26, 2024, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the head, neck, right shoulder, right knee, or psychiatric injury, and that the reporting by Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Peter J. Mandell, M.D., is not substantial medical evidence. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her workers' compensation claim.

The WCAB found that the WCJ's initial rejection of the AME's medical opinion was not supported by substantial evidence and that further development of the medical record was necessary to determine industrial causation. The WCAB granted reconsideration and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17318401 · 2025-03-04 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.8Here, as stated by the WCJ in the Report, the finding of injury to the neck, spine, and bilateral shoulders in the F&A is based upon applicant's testimony as to how the injury occurred and the fact that she sought emergency room treatment immediately. (Report, p. 5.) Under the foregoing authorities, however, substantial medical evidence is required to establish injury AOE/COE. Therefore, we will evaluate QME Dr. Patel's reporting to determine whether the injury finding is supported by substantial medical evidence.

The WCAB found that the WCJ's injury finding was based on applicant's testimony and immediate emergency room treatment, but substantial medical evidence was required. Dr. Patel's reports were reviewed and found to be based on pertinent facts and adequate examination but unclear as to adequate medical history, partly due to defendant restricting medical records review. The Board concluded further development of the record was necessary to determine if Dr. Patel's opinion was based on adequate medical history.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ16741292 · 2025-02-03 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Defendant contends that applicant did not sustain an amputation hence is not eligible for the exception to the 104 week rule because the portion of the finger that was amputated was re- attached. I disagree with defendant's position.

The applicant sustained an amputation of part of his left index finger despite replantation surgery, which qualifies for the extended temporary disability benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c). Medical evidence from Dr. Chen and Dr. Jamasbi supports that the applicant is totally temporarily disabled and entitled to benefits.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ8454650 · 2025-01-24 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7(Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 621, emphasis added.) Here, Dr. Mahawar's medical reporting is not substantial medical evidence on the issue of

The medical opinion on apportionment was found speculative and not substantial evidence; defendant did not meet burden to prove apportionment; therefore, apportionment was invalid and rejected.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ15186514 · 2024-12-13 · Oakland District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.16As to the sufficiency of Dr. Jacks 4/18/2022 IME Report, as summarized herein above, I find it qualifies as substantial medical evidence regarding his diagnosis of Applicant's PTSD. He noted references in the medical records after the September 23, 2019 date listing diagnoses of PTSD. He reviewed several of the work-related traumatic events experienced by Applicant as a Firefighter with the Richmond Fire Department, and found a link between the September 2019 school shooting incident, and subsequent work traumas, and the development of Applicant's PTSD symptomology.

The Board found Dr. Jacks' report to be thorough, based on extensive psychiatric consultation, psychological testing, and review of medical records, constituting substantial evidence supporting the PTSD diagnosis and industrial causation, while Dr. Keins' report was found unsubstantial due to lack of medical record review and untimely supplemental report.

Official decision · page 16 →

ADJ14425169 · 2024-11-22 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of August 12, 2024, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to the kidney while employed during a cumulative period ending February 28, 2021. The WCJ thus ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her workers' compensation claim.

The WCJ's original decision was rescinded because the record was insufficient to establish industrial injury; the case was remanded for further development including additional medical reports addressing causation specifically related to the applicant's diagnosed condition and chemical exposures.

Official decision · page 1 →