California WCABLaw firm
Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Haight Brown & Bonesteel is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Temporary disability (2), AOE/COE (1) and Earnings / average weekly earnings (1). They were heard most often at Oxnard, then Lodi.
- Decisions
- 7
- Years
- 2021–2025
- Issues disputed
- 6
- District offices
- 6
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 7 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.
- ADJ16567838 · 2024-05-29 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4At trial, the parties submitted the question of whether the applicant's case was barred by the Going and Coming Rule. The Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision issued on 3/25/24, finding that the applicant's case was not barred by the Going and Coming Rule. The Petition for Reconsideration was then filed by defendant, who disagreed with this determination.
The injury occurred during a van pool commute that served a business purpose and involved special and extraordinary circumstances, so the Going and Coming Rule bar was rejected.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ18359573 · 2024-05-13 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant1 seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 14, 2024.2
The petition was dismissed as premature because the applicant's understanding of the settlement was not assessed, and the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine if the settlement was valid and adequate.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10684591 · 2022-11-18 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ issued the Order Suspending Right to Maintain Proceedings for the Collection of Compensation and Order Barring Benefits on July 27, 2022, serving it on all parties of record but failing to serve it on applicant who is in pro per. However, defense counsel Haight Brown served it on applicant on August 8, 2022. (Proof of Service, 8/8/22, EAMS Doc Id # 4259608ef.) Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, September 2, 2022 to file a Petition for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on September 19, 2022 is untimely and must be dismissed.
The petition was filed after the statutory deadline for reconsideration, making it untimely and depriving the Board of jurisdiction to consider it.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ12454818 · 2021-05-06 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
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.
- Haight Brown & Bonesteel
- HAIGHT, BROWN & BONESTEEL, LLP
- Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
- Haight, Brown & Bonesteel
- HAIGHT, BROWN & BONESTEEL
- HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL
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.