California WCABLaw firm

County Counsel-county of Kern

County Counsel-county of Kern is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (3), Cumulative trauma (1) and Reopening / new and further disability (1). They were heard most often at Bakersfield. The firm it meets most often is Law Office of Joseph Pluta (2).

Decisions: 6
Years: 2023–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 1

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

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

Carriers and administrators

No carrier appears often enough to name.

Where they appear

Bakersfield 6

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.

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

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ3719477 · 2026-06-15 · Bakersfield District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in relevant part, that in case ADJ3719477, from March 28, 1986 to May 5, 2005, while employed by defendant as a sheriff's deputy, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his low back and claims to have sustained injury to his neck, bilateral knees, and circulatory system-heart. The WCJ further found Dr. Donald Webb to be the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) who provided services in this case and the Petition to Reopen dated January 20, 2010 was timely filed on January 25, 2010. The WCJ also found good cause to reopen the April 18, 2007 Award and further development of the medical- record to be necessary to determine the nature and extent of the new and further disability. The WCJ ordered parties to coordinate discovery efforts to have applicant reevaluated by the AME, Dr. Donald Webb, to determine the nature and extent of the new and further disability. All other issues were deferred and reserved.
The WCJ found good cause to reopen based on evidence of new and further disability, including new periods of temporary disability, despite AME Dr. Webb's opinion that permanent impairment had not changed. The WCAB affirmed this finding and ordered reevaluation by a new AME.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11201608 · 2024-06-10 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.2Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Rulings on Evidence, Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders" (F&A) issued on April 20, 2020, and the subsequent amendment to the F&A in the "Order Amending Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders; Opinion on Decision" (Order) issued on May 5, 2020, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).4 The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained 68% permanent partial disability by adding the impairment to applicant's left and right hip pursuant to East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.). The WCJ further found that apportionment to the hips was not permissible pursuant to Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249 [82 Cal.Comp.Cases 679] because the disability was caused by hip replacement surgery.
The en banc decision holds that the Combined Values Chart (CVC) may be rebutted and impairments added if the applicant establishes the impact of each impairment on activities of daily living (ADLs) and shows either no overlap or an amplifying overlap of ADLs. The WCJ's prior finding to add impairments was not supported by substantial medical evidence because the QME did not analyze ADLs. The Hikida case was misapplied as the applicant's hip surgeries were successful. Defendant failed to prove apportionment due to lack of substantial evidence from the QME.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11201607 · 2024-06-10 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.2Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Rulings on Evidence, Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders" (F&A) issued on April 20, 2020, and the subsequent amendment to the F&A in the "Order Amending Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders; Opinion on Decision" (Order) issued on May 5, 2020, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).4 The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained 68% permanent partial disability by adding the impairment to applicant's left and right hip pursuant to East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.). The WCJ further found that apportionment to the hips was not permissible pursuant to Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249 [82 Cal.Comp.Cases 679] because the disability was caused by hip replacement surgery.
The WCJ's addition of impairments to both hips was not supported by substantial medical evidence because the QME did not adequately analyze the impact on activities of daily living (ADLs) as required to rebut the Combined Values Chart (CVC). The WCJ misapplied Hikida by excluding apportionment despite successful hip surgeries. Defendant failed to prove apportionment due to lack of substantial evidence from the QME.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ10573852 · 2023-05-19 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3followed by the combination of the orthopedic disability with that of the hearing loss, tinnitus and hypertension. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision explained that while "generally impairments are combined rather than added together...when there is a synergistic effect between extremities, those ratings may be added together rather than combined." (F&A, Opinion on Decision, at p. 8.) The WCJ relied on the reporting of IME Dr. Fishman to support adding the orthopedic disability prior to combining it with non-orthopedic disabilities. (Ibid.)
The WCJ properly relied on IME Dr. Fishman's opinion that adding the bilateral orthopedic disabilities prior to combining with non-orthopedic disabilities results in a more accurate permanent disability rating, supported by substantial medical evidence.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ21459493 · 2026-06-25 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ). Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the PWCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant the Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the Order Allowing Fees per Labor Code Section 57101, and return the matter to the PWCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Appeals Board found procedural defects in the Order Allowing Attorney's Fees, including lack of Notice of Intention and failure to consider evidence of preparation time, warranting rescission and remand for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13812292 · 2026-03-27 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Rulings and Orders Admitting Evidence and Joint Findings of Fact, Discovery Order, and Opinion on Decision issued by the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) on November 26, 2025. The PWCJ found, in relevant part, that on August 24, 2019, while employed by defendant as a maintenance worker, applicant sustained a specific industrial injury to his left hip, cervical spine, thoracic spine, left shoulder, left elbow, and left knee and claims to have sustained injury to his upper back, right knee, and right shoulder. Applicant was further found to have sustained a specific industrial injury to his lower back and abdomen on January 2, 2020, while employed by defendant as a maintenance worker. The PWCJ issued a ruling and order to not receive into evidence, the Doctor's First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness (Doctor's First Report) by Kayvon Yadidi, D.O. dated June 22, 2018. The PWCJ further issued Discovery Orders denying defendant's petition for a discovery order requiring applicant to execute a social security release and granting in part, defendant's petition for a discovery order authorizing a further deposition of the applicant only to the extent of applicant's activities of daily living and their interactions as well as changes in applicant's physical condition since the May 22, 2023 deposition.
The Appeals Board found the PWCJ's decision to be a final order subject to reconsideration and denied the petition because defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.
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.

COUNTY COUNSEL - COUNTY OF KERN
County Counsel-County of Kern
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY COUNSEL-COUNTY OF KERN

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 →

County Counsel-county of Kern

Decisions

Years

2023–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

1 for the defense

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ3719477 · 2026-06-15 · Bakersfield District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in relevant part, that in case ADJ3719477, from March 28, 1986 to May 5, 2005, while employed by defendant as a sheriff's deputy, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his low back and claims to have sustained injury to his neck, bilateral knees, and circulatory system-heart. The WCJ further found Dr. Donald Webb to be the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) who provided services in this case and the Petition to Reopen dated January 20, 2010 was timely filed on January 25, 2010. The WCJ also found good cause to reopen the April 18, 2007 Award and further development of the medical- record to be necessary to determine the nature and extent of the new and further disability. The WCJ ordered parties to coordinate discovery efforts to have applicant reevaluated by the AME, Dr. Donald Webb, to determine the nature and extent of the new and further disability. All other issues were deferred and reserved.

The WCJ found good cause to reopen based on evidence of new and further disability, including new periods of temporary disability, despite AME Dr. Webb's opinion that permanent impairment had not changed. The WCAB affirmed this finding and ordered reevaluation by a new AME.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11201608 · 2024-06-10 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.2Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Rulings on Evidence, Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders" (F&A) issued on April 20, 2020, and the subsequent amendment to the F&A in the "Order Amending Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders; Opinion on Decision" (Order) issued on May 5, 2020, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).4 The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained 68% permanent partial disability by adding the impairment to applicant's left and right hip pursuant to East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.). The WCJ further found that apportionment to the hips was not permissible pursuant to Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249 [82 Cal.Comp.Cases 679] because the disability was caused by hip replacement surgery.

The en banc decision holds that the Combined Values Chart (CVC) may be rebutted and impairments added if the applicant establishes the impact of each impairment on activities of daily living (ADLs) and shows either no overlap or an amplifying overlap of ADLs. The WCJ's prior finding to add impairments was not supported by substantial medical evidence because the QME did not analyze ADLs. The Hikida case was misapplied as the applicant's hip surgeries were successful. Defendant failed to prove apportionment due to lack of substantial evidence from the QME.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11201607 · 2024-06-10 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.2Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Rulings on Evidence, Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders" (F&A) issued on April 20, 2020, and the subsequent amendment to the F&A in the "Order Amending Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders; Opinion on Decision" (Order) issued on May 5, 2020, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).4 The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained 68% permanent partial disability by adding the impairment to applicant's left and right hip pursuant to East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.). The WCJ further found that apportionment to the hips was not permissible pursuant to Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249 [82 Cal.Comp.Cases 679] because the disability was caused by hip replacement surgery.

The WCJ's addition of impairments to both hips was not supported by substantial medical evidence because the QME did not adequately analyze the impact on activities of daily living (ADLs) as required to rebut the Combined Values Chart (CVC). The WCJ misapplied Hikida by excluding apportionment despite successful hip surgeries. Defendant failed to prove apportionment due to lack of substantial evidence from the QME.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ10573852 · 2023-05-19 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3followed by the combination of the orthopedic disability with that of the hearing loss, tinnitus and hypertension. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision explained that while "generally impairments are combined rather than added together...when there is a synergistic effect between extremities, those ratings may be added together rather than combined." (F&A, Opinion on Decision, at p. 8.) The WCJ relied on the reporting of IME Dr. Fishman to support adding the orthopedic disability prior to combining it with non-orthopedic disabilities. (Ibid.)

The WCJ properly relied on IME Dr. Fishman's opinion that adding the bilateral orthopedic disabilities prior to combining with non-orthopedic disabilities results in a more accurate permanent disability rating, supported by substantial medical evidence.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ21459493 · 2026-06-25 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ). Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the PWCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant the Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the Order Allowing Fees per Labor Code Section 57101, and return the matter to the PWCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Appeals Board found procedural defects in the Order Allowing Attorney's Fees, including lack of Notice of Intention and failure to consider evidence of preparation time, warranting rescission and remand for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13812292 · 2026-03-27 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Rulings and Orders Admitting Evidence and Joint Findings of Fact, Discovery Order, and Opinion on Decision issued by the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) on November 26, 2025. The PWCJ found, in relevant part, that on August 24, 2019, while employed by defendant as a maintenance worker, applicant sustained a specific industrial injury to his left hip, cervical spine, thoracic spine, left shoulder, left elbow, and left knee and claims to have sustained injury to his upper back, right knee, and right shoulder. Applicant was further found to have sustained a specific industrial injury to his lower back and abdomen on January 2, 2020, while employed by defendant as a maintenance worker. The PWCJ issued a ruling and order to not receive into evidence, the Doctor's First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness (Doctor's First Report) by Kayvon Yadidi, D.O. dated June 22, 2018. The PWCJ further issued Discovery Orders denying defendant's petition for a discovery order requiring applicant to execute a social security release and granting in part, defendant's petition for a discovery order authorizing a further deposition of the applicant only to the extent of applicant's activities of daily living and their interactions as well as changes in applicant's physical condition since the May 22, 2023 deposition.

The Appeals Board found the PWCJ's decision to be a final order subject to reconsideration and denied the petition because defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

Official decision · page 1 →