California WCABLaw firm

Chavez & Breault

Chavez & Breault is named in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2024–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (1), Permanent disability rating (1) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at San Francisco, then Oakland. The firm it meets most often is Gimbel Law Firm (2).

Decisions: 5
Years: 2024–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 2

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 4 of 5 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.

Who they face

Gimbel Law Firm2

2 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

San Francisco 3
Oakland 2

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.

2 for the applicant
2 returned for more record
1 for the defense

Counted over 5 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

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

ADJ18573103 · 2026-08-17 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8II. We will affirm the WCJ’s finding that applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026 going forward. Temporary disability indemnity is compensation for temporary impairment in earning ability caused by the industrial injury which is reasonably expected to be cured or materially improved with proper medical treatment or over time. (Lab. Code, §§ 4453 and 4653; see Chavira v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 463, 473 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 631].) We adopt and incorporate the WCJ’s report on this issue as follows: THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND AWARD OF TTD FROM JANUARY 9, 2026 AND ONGOING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND NOT IN ERROR
The WCAB found that the applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026, ongoing, based on the credible opinion of PTP Dr. Kamdar and applicant's testimony, rejecting the stale opinions of AMEs Dr. Levy and Dr. Woodcox regarding permanent and stationary status. The delay in payment was not unreasonable due to genuine medical doubt, so the 25% penalty under section 5814 was rescinded, but a 10% increase on delayed payments was awarded under section 4650(d). Attorney fees under section 5813 were rescinded and replaced with a 15% fee on delayed payments.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ15516233 · 2025-08-04 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 5, 2025 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, as stipulated by the parties, that applicant sustained a specific injury of August 12, 2021 to the bilateral wrists, bilateral shoulders, neck, bilateral elbows arising out of and in the course of employment by permissibly self-insured employer United Continental Holdings as a customer service representative. The WCJ also found that the February 24, 2025 report of primary treating physician (PTP) Timothy Lo, M.D., did not document a change of material facts and does not constitute substantial evidence in support of his February 24, 2025 Request for Authorization (RFA) of a functional restoration program. The WCJ further found that Utilization Review (UR) of Dr. Lo's February 24, 2025 RFA was not required, and that the WCAB has no jurisdiction to determine the medical necessity of the functional restoration program requested in that RFA.
The WCJ found no jurisdiction to determine medical necessity because the February 24, 2025 RFA did not document a change of material facts to require utilization review. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review this jurisdictional issue.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15715449 · 2024-08-05 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of May 20, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed on December 15, 2021, as a ramp service employee, applicant sustained industrial injury to the left heel, left ankle, and in the form of a scar causing permanent disability of 59%.
The WCJ's permanent disability rating was found not to be based on substantial medical evidence because it impermissibly combined muscle strength and range of motion impairments contrary to AMA Guides Table 17-2. The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow further development of the medical record and reanalysis of the permanent disability issue.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14478876 · 2026-01-27 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Subsequently, the parties attended the aforementioned status conference to discuss the issues raised. On January 21, 2026, the parties filed a joint Stipulation that in exchange for applicant's agreement to have the December 11, 2024 decision of the WCJ rescinded, defendant will withdraw the Petition for Reconsideration of the decision, in order that the matter be returned to the trial level for further discovery on all issues.
The parties stipulated to rescind the WCJ decision and return the matter to the trial level for further discovery and proceedings, which the WCAB approved.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ14478876 · 2025-03-10 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5950 et seq.
The WCAB found that the Petition for Reconsideration was timely filed and acted upon within the 60-day statutory period, but deferred final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.
Official decision · page 2 →

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.

CHAVEZ & BREAULT
CHAVEZ BREAULT 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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Chavez & Breault

Decisions

Years

2024–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

2 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

1 for the defense

Counted over 5 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

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

ADJ18573103 · 2026-08-17 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8II. We will affirm the WCJ’s finding that applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026 going forward. Temporary disability indemnity is compensation for temporary impairment in earning ability caused by the industrial injury which is reasonably expected to be cured or materially improved with proper medical treatment or over time. (Lab. Code, §§ 4453 and 4653; see Chavira v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 463, 473 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 631].) We adopt and incorporate the WCJ’s report on this issue as follows: THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND AWARD OF TTD FROM JANUARY 9, 2026 AND ONGOING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND NOT IN ERROR

The WCAB found that the applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026, ongoing, based on the credible opinion of PTP Dr. Kamdar and applicant's testimony, rejecting the stale opinions of AMEs Dr. Levy and Dr. Woodcox regarding permanent and stationary status. The delay in payment was not unreasonable due to genuine medical doubt, so the 25% penalty under section 5814 was rescinded, but a 10% increase on delayed payments was awarded under section 4650(d). Attorney fees under section 5813 were rescinded and replaced with a 15% fee on delayed payments.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ15516233 · 2025-08-04 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 5, 2025 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, as stipulated by the parties, that applicant sustained a specific injury of August 12, 2021 to the bilateral wrists, bilateral shoulders, neck, bilateral elbows arising out of and in the course of employment by permissibly self-insured employer United Continental Holdings as a customer service representative. The WCJ also found that the February 24, 2025 report of primary treating physician (PTP) Timothy Lo, M.D., did not document a change of material facts and does not constitute substantial evidence in support of his February 24, 2025 Request for Authorization (RFA) of a functional restoration program. The WCJ further found that Utilization Review (UR) of Dr. Lo's February 24, 2025 RFA was not required, and that the WCAB has no jurisdiction to determine the medical necessity of the functional restoration program requested in that RFA.

The WCJ found no jurisdiction to determine medical necessity because the February 24, 2025 RFA did not document a change of material facts to require utilization review. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review this jurisdictional issue.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15715449 · 2024-08-05 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of May 20, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed on December 15, 2021, as a ramp service employee, applicant sustained industrial injury to the left heel, left ankle, and in the form of a scar causing permanent disability of 59%.

The WCJ's permanent disability rating was found not to be based on substantial medical evidence because it impermissibly combined muscle strength and range of motion impairments contrary to AMA Guides Table 17-2. The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow further development of the medical record and reanalysis of the permanent disability issue.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14478876 · 2026-01-27 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Subsequently, the parties attended the aforementioned status conference to discuss the issues raised. On January 21, 2026, the parties filed a joint Stipulation that in exchange for applicant's agreement to have the December 11, 2024 decision of the WCJ rescinded, defendant will withdraw the Petition for Reconsideration of the decision, in order that the matter be returned to the trial level for further discovery on all issues.

The parties stipulated to rescind the WCJ decision and return the matter to the trial level for further discovery and proceedings, which the WCAB approved.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ14478876 · 2025-03-10 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5950 et seq.

The WCAB found that the Petition for Reconsideration was timely filed and acted upon within the 60-day statutory period, but deferred final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.

Official decision · page 2 →