California WCABLaw firm

Hinshaw & Culbertson

Hinshaw & Culbertson is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (3), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2) and AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Pomona.

Decisions: 9
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 6

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Van Nuys 3
Pomona 2
Anaheim 1
Bakersfield 1
Los Angeles 1
Oxnard 1

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 defense
4 for the applicant

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ7651912 · 2023-11-27 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.13The decision of the WCJ to impose laches to bar applicant from proceeding with necessary development of the record to establish her section 4700 claim, was therefore not based on substantial evidence of unreasonable delay or prejudice to defendant caused by unreasonable delay. "Any decision to impose laches not based on substantial evidence would constitute "a manifest injustice." (City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Com. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1286 [1989 Cal.App. LEXIS 517].) In other words, any such decision would be vulnerable to appellate review. (Id.; see Lab. Code, § 5950 et seq.)
The WCJ's finding of laches barring applicant from cross-examination was not supported by substantial evidence of unreasonable delay or prejudice to defendant, constituting a manifest injustice.
Official decision · page 13 →
ADJ7651912 · 2023-09-08 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on June 19, 2023 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part that even though applicant properly raised objection at the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) to closing discovery, the objection was overruled because applicant is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches from proceeding with discovery related to decedent's permanent and stationary date; and, that the permanent and stationary date for all of decedent's injuries was March 23, 2015 based on the evaluation and report of the psychiatric Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME).
The WCJ's application of laches was not supported by substantial evidence of prejudice to defendant, warranting reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7909061 · 2023-08-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order (F&A) in case number ADJ7745966, issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 22, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, shoulders, and in the form of GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease); the WCJ also found that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his lungs or in the form of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).
Applicant failed to meet burden of proof to show industrial injury on disputed body parts and conditions despite multiple opportunities to develop the medical record; Appeals Board found no good cause to further delay resolution by additional record development.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7841879 · 2022-09-28 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.13In this case, the record shows that the parties stipulated in 2016 that it was reasonable and necessary for lien claimant to act as applicant's case manager, and defendant has presented no evidence demonstrating good cause for his removal. (Report, p. 2.) Specifically, as stated by the WCJ in the Report, the record (1) shows that Drs. Zehler, Miller, Patterson and Hoang have opined that lien claimant's services are reasonably necessary for applicant's treatment; (2) contains no evidence that lien claimant improperly performed any service or could be replaced by another case manager familiar with applicant's medical condition and symptomatology; and (3) reveals defendant is not prejudiced by lien claimant's ongoing service because it retains the right to timely object to any service or billing, including the timeliness thereof, it deems unreasonable. (Report, pp. 7-13.) Accordingly, we are unable to discern support for defendant's contention that the WCJ erroneously failed to find that lien claimant should be removed as agreed case manager.
The WCJ and WCAB found that lien claimant Richard Dier's services as agreed case manager were reasonably necessary and that defendant failed to show good cause for removal, supported by medical opinions and lack of evidence of improper performance.
Official decision · page 13 →
ADJ12221422 · 2024-09-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition for Removal, rescind the March 15, 2023 Order issued by the WCJ, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision and for the WCJ to prepare a proper record of the proceedings in accordance with section 5313 and Hamilton.
Applicant demonstrated that the WCJ order taking the case off calendar without a proper record caused substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, warranting removal and rescission of the order.
Official decision · page 7 →
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 →
ADJ7745966 · 2022-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal, requesting that the appeals board rescind the Order dated October 6, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) vacated submission and ordered this matter off calendar to allow the parties to develop the record.
The Board balanced the duty to develop the record with the parties' obligation to exercise due diligence and found that the medical record was not developed despite ample opportunity, justifying removal and closure of discovery.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11201606 · 2022-03-11 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ issued a Findings, Orders and Award on December 23, 2021. Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration contending that the WCJ's decision did not address the issue of third-party credit. On January 11, 2022, the WCJ issued an Amended Findings, Orders and Award allowing the third-party credit against defendant's liability for permanent disability pursuant to his authority under WCAB Rule 10961. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) No party sought reconsideration of the January 11, 2022 amended decision.
The WCJ issued an amended decision allowing third-party credit, rendering the defendant's petition for reconsideration moot.
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.

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
Hinshaw & Culbertson
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
Hinshaw and Culbertson
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
HINSHAW CULBERTSON

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

4 for the applicant

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ7651912 · 2023-11-27 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.13The decision of the WCJ to impose laches to bar applicant from proceeding with necessary development of the record to establish her section 4700 claim, was therefore not based on substantial evidence of unreasonable delay or prejudice to defendant caused by unreasonable delay. "Any decision to impose laches not based on substantial evidence would constitute "a manifest injustice." (City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Com. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1286 [1989 Cal.App. LEXIS 517].) In other words, any such decision would be vulnerable to appellate review. (Id.; see Lab. Code, § 5950 et seq.)

The WCJ's finding of laches barring applicant from cross-examination was not supported by substantial evidence of unreasonable delay or prejudice to defendant, constituting a manifest injustice.

Official decision · page 13 →

ADJ7651912 · 2023-09-08 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on June 19, 2023 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part that even though applicant properly raised objection at the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) to closing discovery, the objection was overruled because applicant is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches from proceeding with discovery related to decedent's permanent and stationary date; and, that the permanent and stationary date for all of decedent's injuries was March 23, 2015 based on the evaluation and report of the psychiatric Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME).

The WCJ's application of laches was not supported by substantial evidence of prejudice to defendant, warranting reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7909061 · 2023-08-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order (F&A) in case number ADJ7745966, issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 22, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, shoulders, and in the form of GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease); the WCJ also found that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his lungs or in the form of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).

Applicant failed to meet burden of proof to show industrial injury on disputed body parts and conditions despite multiple opportunities to develop the medical record; Appeals Board found no good cause to further delay resolution by additional record development.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7841879 · 2022-09-28 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.13In this case, the record shows that the parties stipulated in 2016 that it was reasonable and necessary for lien claimant to act as applicant's case manager, and defendant has presented no evidence demonstrating good cause for his removal. (Report, p. 2.) Specifically, as stated by the WCJ in the Report, the record (1) shows that Drs. Zehler, Miller, Patterson and Hoang have opined that lien claimant's services are reasonably necessary for applicant's treatment; (2) contains no evidence that lien claimant improperly performed any service or could be replaced by another case manager familiar with applicant's medical condition and symptomatology; and (3) reveals defendant is not prejudiced by lien claimant's ongoing service because it retains the right to timely object to any service or billing, including the timeliness thereof, it deems unreasonable. (Report, pp. 7-13.) Accordingly, we are unable to discern support for defendant's contention that the WCJ erroneously failed to find that lien claimant should be removed as agreed case manager.

The WCJ and WCAB found that lien claimant Richard Dier's services as agreed case manager were reasonably necessary and that defendant failed to show good cause for removal, supported by medical opinions and lack of evidence of improper performance.

Official decision · page 13 →

ADJ12221422 · 2024-09-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition for Removal, rescind the March 15, 2023 Order issued by the WCJ, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision and for the WCJ to prepare a proper record of the proceedings in accordance with section 5313 and Hamilton.

Applicant demonstrated that the WCJ order taking the case off calendar without a proper record caused substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, warranting removal and rescission of the order.

Official decision · page 7 →

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 →

ADJ7745966 · 2022-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal, requesting that the appeals board rescind the Order dated October 6, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) vacated submission and ordered this matter off calendar to allow the parties to develop the record.

The Board balanced the duty to develop the record with the parties' obligation to exercise due diligence and found that the medical record was not developed despite ample opportunity, justifying removal and closure of discovery.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11201606 · 2022-03-11 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ issued a Findings, Orders and Award on December 23, 2021. Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration contending that the WCJ's decision did not address the issue of third-party credit. On January 11, 2022, the WCJ issued an Amended Findings, Orders and Award allowing the third-party credit against defendant's liability for permanent disability pursuant to his authority under WCAB Rule 10961. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) No party sought reconsideration of the January 11, 2022 amended decision.

The WCJ issued an amended decision allowing third-party credit, rendering the defendant's petition for reconsideration moot.

Official decision · page 1 →