California WCABLaw firm

Durard, McKenna & Borg

Durard, McKenna & Borg is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (3), AOE/COE (1) and Statute of limitations (1). They were heard most often at San Francisco. The firm it meets most often is Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (4).

Decisions: 8
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 6 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

1 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 8

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.

5 for the applicant
3 for the defense

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ12075922 · 2025-09-12 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 13, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his left knee, right knee, lower back, and left hip resulting in an award of 69% permanent disability based on the medical reporting agreed medical evaluator (AME) Dr. Peter Mandell, M.D. The WCJ also found that defendant unreasonably delayed or refused payment of partial permanent and temporary disability indemnity compensation and issued two penalties for defendant's unreasonable delay of payment of compensation pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5814.
The WCJ's finding of 69% permanent disability based on Dr. Mandell's AME reports was upheld as supported by substantial evidence, and penalties were affirmed for defendant's unreasonable delay in payment of temporary and permanent disability indemnity.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11994224 · 2025-05-23 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6In my F&A, I followed the reports of the Agreed Medical Evaluators. I found that applicant suffered injury arising from and within the course and scope of employment to his head, neck, back, right wrist, right knee, cognitive and vestibular systems. The injury resulted in 49% partial permanent disability, based on the formal permanent disability rating of the agreed medical reports. I awarded a 15% attorney fee to applicant attorney from the 49% indemnity awarded. I awarded applicant's permanent partial indemnity, less the attorney fee and less the temporary total indemnity overpayment.
The WCJ's findings of 49% permanent partial disability and a 15% attorney fee were supported by substantial evidence including agreed medical reports and surveillance evidence, and were upheld on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ13182924 · 2025-01-03 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Award and Order of October 8, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed on October 3, 2019 as a bus operator, applicant sustained industrial injury to the cervical spine and left shoulder causing permanent disability of 17%. In finding permanent disability of 17%, it was found that there was no basis for apportionment. Additionally, the WCJ did not allow defendant to credit an overpayment of temporary disability indemnity towards its permanent disability indemnity liability.
The WCJ and Appeals Board found the 17% permanent disability rating supported by substantial evidence and rejected apportionment due to lack of explanation in medical reports for nonindustrial factors and no evidence of prior awards for overlap under Labor Code section 4664.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10964062 · 2024-05-30 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 19, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that defendant did not meet its burden of proof with respect to the statute of limitations defense.
Applicant timely invoked WCAB jurisdiction under Labor Code section 5410 for new and further disability within five years of injury; defendant did not meet burden to prove statute of limitations defense based on notice adequacy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14380906 · 2023-09-15 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 30, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his right shoulder, that the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is October 15, 2020, that applicant was notified of the October 12, 2020 termination of his employment with defendant on October 8, 2020; and that applicant's injury claim is not barred by the Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D) post-termination defense.1
The WCJ found substantial evidence that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his right shoulder and that the date of injury was October 15, 2020, which is after the termination notice date, thus the claim is not barred by the post-termination defense.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12075922 · 2023-09-08 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Based on my analysis of the entire record, I find that applicant has met his burden of proof with respect to TTD starting March 11, 2019. In its brief, defendant makes much of the fact that applicant went out for unrelated reasons in September 2018 and began seeking treatment for the knee after exhausting his leave. However, this timeline-and the connotation of ulterior motives it carries- does not outweigh the entirety of the medical evidence in the case, according to which applicant became incapable of performing his job in March 2019, specifically as a result of symptoms in the left knee. There is contemporaneous reporting from Dr. Solomon in exhibit 16, as well as reports from both QMEs in exhibits 13 and 14-all three opined that applicant's left knee symptoms were disabling absent surgical intervention.
The evidence, including QME reports, treatment records, and credible testimony, supported the finding that applicant was totally temporarily disabled from March 11, 2019, due to his industrial left knee injury, entitling him to TTD indemnity.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ7981413 · 2025-06-03 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, as discussed in the WCJ's report, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, the petition will be denied.
The petition did not set forth sufficient verified facts to establish grounds for disqualification under the applicable law and regulations, and the WCJ's impartiality was not demonstrated to be compromised.
Official decision · page 3 →

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.

DURARD, MCKENNA & BORG
Durard, McKenna & Borg
DURARD MCKENNA
DURARD, MCKENNA AND BORG
DURARD, McKENNA & BORG

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 →

Durard, McKenna & Borg

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

3 for the defense

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ12075922 · 2025-09-12 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 13, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his left knee, right knee, lower back, and left hip resulting in an award of 69% permanent disability based on the medical reporting agreed medical evaluator (AME) Dr. Peter Mandell, M.D. The WCJ also found that defendant unreasonably delayed or refused payment of partial permanent and temporary disability indemnity compensation and issued two penalties for defendant's unreasonable delay of payment of compensation pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5814.

The WCJ's finding of 69% permanent disability based on Dr. Mandell's AME reports was upheld as supported by substantial evidence, and penalties were affirmed for defendant's unreasonable delay in payment of temporary and permanent disability indemnity.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11994224 · 2025-05-23 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6In my F&A, I followed the reports of the Agreed Medical Evaluators. I found that applicant suffered injury arising from and within the course and scope of employment to his head, neck, back, right wrist, right knee, cognitive and vestibular systems. The injury resulted in 49% partial permanent disability, based on the formal permanent disability rating of the agreed medical reports. I awarded a 15% attorney fee to applicant attorney from the 49% indemnity awarded. I awarded applicant's permanent partial indemnity, less the attorney fee and less the temporary total indemnity overpayment.

The WCJ's findings of 49% permanent partial disability and a 15% attorney fee were supported by substantial evidence including agreed medical reports and surveillance evidence, and were upheld on reconsideration.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ13182924 · 2025-01-03 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Award and Order of October 8, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed on October 3, 2019 as a bus operator, applicant sustained industrial injury to the cervical spine and left shoulder causing permanent disability of 17%. In finding permanent disability of 17%, it was found that there was no basis for apportionment. Additionally, the WCJ did not allow defendant to credit an overpayment of temporary disability indemnity towards its permanent disability indemnity liability.

The WCJ and Appeals Board found the 17% permanent disability rating supported by substantial evidence and rejected apportionment due to lack of explanation in medical reports for nonindustrial factors and no evidence of prior awards for overlap under Labor Code section 4664.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10964062 · 2024-05-30 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 19, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that defendant did not meet its burden of proof with respect to the statute of limitations defense.

Applicant timely invoked WCAB jurisdiction under Labor Code section 5410 for new and further disability within five years of injury; defendant did not meet burden to prove statute of limitations defense based on notice adequacy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14380906 · 2023-09-15 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 30, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his right shoulder, that the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is October 15, 2020, that applicant was notified of the October 12, 2020 termination of his employment with defendant on October 8, 2020; and that applicant's injury claim is not barred by the Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D) post-termination defense.1

The WCJ found substantial evidence that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his right shoulder and that the date of injury was October 15, 2020, which is after the termination notice date, thus the claim is not barred by the post-termination defense.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12075922 · 2023-09-08 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Based on my analysis of the entire record, I find that applicant has met his burden of proof with respect to TTD starting March 11, 2019. In its brief, defendant makes much of the fact that applicant went out for unrelated reasons in September 2018 and began seeking treatment for the knee after exhausting his leave. However, this timeline-and the connotation of ulterior motives it carries- does not outweigh the entirety of the medical evidence in the case, according to which applicant became incapable of performing his job in March 2019, specifically as a result of symptoms in the left knee. There is contemporaneous reporting from Dr. Solomon in exhibit 16, as well as reports from both QMEs in exhibits 13 and 14-all three opined that applicant's left knee symptoms were disabling absent surgical intervention.

The evidence, including QME reports, treatment records, and credible testimony, supported the finding that applicant was totally temporarily disabled from March 11, 2019, due to his industrial left knee injury, entitling him to TTD indemnity.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ7981413 · 2025-06-03 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, as discussed in the WCJ's report, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, the petition will be denied.

The petition did not set forth sufficient verified facts to establish grounds for disqualification under the applicable law and regulations, and the WCJ's impartiality was not demonstrated to be compromised.

Official decision · page 3 →