Bradford & Barthel

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Fresno 29
• Van Nuys 27
• Los Angeles 15
• Bakersfield 11
• Riverside 11
• San Diego 9
• Anaheim 7
• San Francisco 7
• Marina del Rey 6
• Oxnard 6
• Santa Barbara 6
• Oakland 5

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.

• 93 for the defense
• 57 for the applicant
• 23 returned for more record

Counted over 164 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.

• ADJ21245209 · 2026-08-14 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The WCJ found that the QME process was not correctly initiated apparently because the QME process is triggered by an objection to a “primary treating physician” and that neither Nurse Uichanco, nor Dr. Roach was a “primary treating physician.” However, Labor Code section 3209.10(a) plainly states:

  The WCAB found that Nurse Uichanco was acting under Dr. Roach's supervision, making Dr. Roach the primary treating physician under Labor Code section 3209.10, and that the QME process was properly initiated. The WCAB granted reconsideration and reversed the WCJ's removal of Dr. Bolling as QME, allowing Dr. Bolling to remain as QME.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11046834 · 2026-07-22 · San Diego District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.18Based on the opinion of primary treating physician Larry Dodge, M.D., applicant has 13 percent whole person impairment to her lumbar spine under the AMA Guides for the cumulative injury from November 3, 2003 through November 3, 2004. 8. Based on the opinion of qualified medical examiner Beth Bathgate, M.D., applicant’s cumulative injury from November 3, 2004 through September 11, 2017 caused whole person impairment of 13 percent under the AMA Guides. 9. Defendant has met its burden of establishing a total overlap between past and current injuries and thus has met it burden to show apportionment under section 4664(b). 10. Applicant has not suffered any additional permanent impairment or resulting permanent partial disability from the November 3, 2004 through September 11, 2017 industrial injury.

  Defendant met burden to show total overlap between prior and current injuries, supporting apportionment under Labor Code section 4664(b).

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ21567804 · 2026-07-20 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, the report is not signed by anyone other than the nurse practitioner. Applicant provided unrebutted testimony that no physician other than the nurse practitioner and a physician

  The nurse practitioner's report was not signed by a physician and thus invalid as a release from care; a nurse practitioner cannot be designated as a primary treating physician under Labor Code section 3209.10; therefore, the applicant is entitled to designate a new primary treating physician and continue medical treatment.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ19727180 · 2026-07-20 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Apportionment is the process utilized to segregate permanent disability or the residuals caused by an industrial injury from those attributable to other industrial injuries or to nonindustrial factors, to allocate legal responsibility fairly. (Brodie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) Cal.4th 1313, 1321 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565]; Marsh v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 906, 911 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 787].) The mere fact that a medical report assigns approximate percentages of industrial and nonindustrial causation does not make the report reliable medical evidence by itself. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 927-928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687].) Instead, apportionment of permanent disability is “based on causation” and the “employer shall only be liable for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by

  PQME Dr. Hyman provided substantial medical evidence that the applicant's permanent disability was entirely industrial, refusing to apportion any part to nonindustrial risk factors such as smoking, obesity, or genetic predisposition, which were only risk factors and not direct causes of the permanent disability. Defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to establish apportionment.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ18890787 · 2026-06-15 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7We agree with the WCJ that the second case against Asset Protection is an attempt by applicant to relitigate the issues decided against him with finality in case number ADJ10622598 and as such, the case is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. Furthermore, we agree that this case should be dismissed with prejudice as there is no new evidence in the record to support the contention that applicant should be allowed to proceed against defendants.

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that the second case ADJ18890787 is an attempt to relitigate issues decided with finality in ADJ10622598 and is precluded by res judicata, warranting dismissal with prejudice due to no new evidence supporting the claim.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ21369860 · 2026-05-18 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary

  The medical evidence showed applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024, and no contrary substantial evidence was presented to extend temporary disability beyond that date.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ20709426 · 2026-04-20 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7The holding in Huston requires that in order to be relieved of potential liability for temporary disability for an injured worker capable of returning to modified duties, the employer must establish that work within applicant's restrictions is both available and offered. An offer of regular, modified, or alternative work must be bona fide. (Dennis v. State of California (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 28, 43 (Appeals Board en banc).) A resignation cannot be interpreted as a refusal of modified work and cannot be used as a basis for denying temporary disability if modified work was not offered. (City of Seaside v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sanchez) (1991) 56 Cal.Comp.Cases 598 (writ den.).) Moreover, where an injured worker's resignation is a result of the injury, the worker cannot be said to be unwilling to work. (See Gonzales, supra, at p. 1479.)

  The employer did not make a bona fide offer of modified work in writing and did not appropriately accommodate the applicant's work restrictions. The resignation was due to the effects of the industrial injury, not a voluntary non-industrial reason. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11757597 · 2026-03-30 · Anaheim District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Defendant has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration wherein they dispute the Findings, Award and Order dated 05/27/2025 finding that defendant's revocation of authorization for Dr. Jerome Peterson, D.D.S./Guru Dentistry to treat applicant constitutes a bad faith action or tactic that is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 and Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8, section 10421(a) and (b)(6); that Applicant is entitled to additional temporary disability for the period 01/10/2020 and continuing at a weekly rate to be adjusted by the parties with jurisdiction reserved up to the maximum allowed pursuant to Labor Code section 4656(c)(2) less amounts previously paid by defendant; that applicant sustained injury to urological and erectile dysfunction; and that applicant's attorney has performed services of a reasonable value of 15% of the temporary disability.

  The court found defendant's revocation of authorization for Dr. Peterson to treat applicant constituted a bad faith action or tactic that is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, justifying sanctions.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8471459 · 2026-03-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1The following Decision After Remittitur is issued pursuant to the Order issued on February 20, 2026 by the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 8 (Second District), in which the Court found good cause to grant the request of the Appeals Board to annul the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued on December 10, 2024 (Decision), and remand the matter to the Appeals Board for further proceedings. This is our decision after remittitur and remand.

  The record lacked substantial evidence to support the denial of industrial causation due to missing contemporaneous witness statements not provided to medical evaluators, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13705745 · 2026-03-19 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingnot_reached

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award issued April 10, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, bilateral shoulders, and upper extremities, as a machine feeder, while employed by Capabunga. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 71% after apportionment.

  The defendant contended the record lacked substantial medical evidence to support the 71% permanent disability rating, but the WCJ found otherwise and the reconsideration was procedural, not on merits.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18371631 · 2026-03-13 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the "proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or `convincing.'" (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Here, to find industrial injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees, the WCJ relied on the medical evidence of global PQME, Adam J.

  The WCJ relied on substantial medical evidence from PQME Dr. Stoller and credible applicant testimony to find injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees during the cumulative trauma period through June 30, 2017.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11656888 · 2026-03-09 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In order to further study the factual and legal issues in these cases, we1 granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Order of August 13, 2021, wherein it was found "applicant did sustain injury to her right foot and bilateral knees on an industrial basis." Previously in this matter, in a Findings of Fact and Order of September 6, 2019, the WCJ had found industrial injury to the right foot. Defendant sought reconsideration of the September 6, 2019 decision and in an Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration of December 2, 2019, we found that the record as it then stood did not support a finding of industrial injury, but we sent the case back to the trial level to afford applicant the opportunity to procure and present substantial medical evidence of industrial injury.

  Applicant did not present substantial medical evidence tying the work incident to disability or need for medical treatment; medical opinions based on incomplete or speculative history were rejected.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 19.

• BRADFORD & BARTHEL
• BRADFORD & BARTHEL, LLP
• LAW OFFICES OF BRADFORD & BARTHEL
• LAW OFFICES OF BRADFORD & BARTHEL, LLP
• Bradford & Barthel
• Law Offices of Bradford & Barthel
• Law Offices of Bradford & Barthel, LLP
• BRADFORD AND BARTHEL
• LAW OFFICE OF BRADFORD & BARTHEL
• BRADFORD BARTHEL LAW
• BRADFORD BARTHEL
• LAW OFFICES OF BRADFORD AND BARTHEL

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.