Laura G. Chapman & Associates

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Oakland 11
• Sacramento 5
• San Francisco 5
• San Jose 3
• Bakersfield 2
• Fresno 2
• Lodi 2
• Salinas 1
• Santa Luis Obispo 1
• Stockton 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.

• 22 for the defense
• 14 for the applicant

Counted over 32 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

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

• ADJ8534435 · 2025-12-19 · Oakland District OfficeContribution / subrogationdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7For all the reasons above, we therefore conclude that CEC has no right to credit in these contribution proceedings stemming from its Longshore Act settlement. Accordingly, we will affirm the arbitrator's F&A, except that we will amend it to clarify that no credit was previously awarded, as described above. In all other respects, including the award of contribution subject to adjustment by the parties with jurisdiction reserved to the arbitrator in the event the parties cannot determine the proper amount of contribution themselves, the F&A remains intact.

  CEC was not entitled to a credit for its Longshore Act settlement in the California contribution proceedings because it had the opportunity to assert a credit in the federal case and failed to do so; California law does not provide for such a credit in these circumstances, and the purpose of preventing double recovery was not implicated.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ19297551 · 2025-08-11 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Lastly, section 4605 provides: Nothing contained in this chapter shall limit the right of the employee to provide, at his or her own expense, a consulting physician or any attending physicians whom he or she desires. Any report prepared by consulting or attending physicians pursuant to this section shall not be the sole basis of an award of compensation. A qualified medical evaluator or authorized treating physician shall address any report procured pursuant to this section and shall indicate whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the findings or opinions stated in the report, and shall identify the bases for this opinion. (Lab. Code, § 4605.) Here, we have concluded that Dr. Tarin's medical report is relevant to the issue and must be provided to Dr. Bressler under section 4062.3(a)(2). We note that the application of section 4605 is more significant in the context of whether reporting by a consulting physician may be the basis for an award. Here the issue is causation, not permanent disability, but we observe that the language of section 4605 also supports a conclusion that the QME should review the reporting. Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition, rescind the WCJ's May 9, 2025 F&O, and issue a new decision ordering that Dr. Tarin's report be provided to QME Dr. Bressler.

  The Appeals Board found that Dr. Tarin's pathology report is relevant and must be provided to the QME under Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2), rejecting the WCJ's exclusion based on AD Rule 35(e) and WCAB Rule 10682(b).

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ12511510 · 2025-05-02 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the January 28, 2025 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the right ear, and claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the left ear, while employed on June 21, 2019, as a panel installer. The WCJ further found that the injury herein caused 43% permanent disability without apportionment.

  The WCJ found no apportionment due to lack of substantial medical evidence from Dr. Ward, whose apportionment opinion was inadequately explained and unsupported by medical rationale. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review this issue.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10594852 · 2025-04-14 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1812. For ADJ10594852, applicant sustained injury to the right index finger resulting in permanent disability of 38%, payable in an amount to be adjusted by the parties, with jurisdiction reserved to the WCJ in the event of dispute. 13. For ADJ10882630, applicant sustained injury to the back resulting in permanent disability of 15%, payable in an amount to be adjusted by the parties, with jurisdiction reserved to the WCJ in the event of dispute. 14. Defendant is not entitled to a credit for overpayment of temporary disability benefits in ADJ10882630 to be applicable against permanent disability benefits owed in ADJ10594852. 15. Applicant requires further medical treatment to cure or relieve the effects of these injuries. 16. The issues of the amount of attorney's fees to which applicant is entitled in ADJ10594852 and ADJ10882630 are deferred.

  The Appeals Board substituted findings that the right index finger injury resulted in 38% permanent disability, payable with jurisdiction reserved to the WCJ for disputes.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ10110509 · 2024-11-27 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7In Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 [Appeals Board en banc], the Board discussed the following requirements for a medical opinion to be considered substantial evidence of apportionment:

  Dr. Anderson's apportionment opinion was found not to be substantial evidence due to lack of detailed reasoning, internal contradictions, and speculative nature, failing the Escobedo standard.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ6649353 · 2024-04-26 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The difficulty with Zurich's position (as also noted in the Findings, Award, and Order) is that Dr. Newman's 5-19-13 report stated that the 2-17-09 injury caused overlap with the 12-01-06 injury, and that the 2-17-09 injury "aggravated" the 12-01-06 injury.[3] The variance in job duties, noted by Zurich for the second CT period, ignores the fact that Applicant testified that his job duties remained essentially the same during his entire period of employment. (See Exhibit HH, the applicant Depo, 49:15, 50:14 and 52:24) Hence, the first cumulative trauma injury was caused by the same essential work duties that Dr. Newman believes caused the second cumulative trauma injury. (See Exhibit GG, Newman Depo, 9:25, 13:4 and 14:25)

  The Board affirmed the Arbitrator's finding that the cumulative trauma injury periods overlapped and were caused by the same essential work duties, thus liability falls on the insurer covering the last year of injurious exposure per Labor Code Section 5500.5.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ8115072 · 2023-01-23 · San Jose District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.41. ARE APPLICANT'S PENALTY CLAIMS BARRED BY LABOR CODE SECTION 5814(g)?

  The defendant raised the statute of limitations defense for the first time in the Petition for Reconsideration, which is deemed waived because it was not raised earlier in the proceedings, so the penalties awarded are not barred by the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11158729 · 2022-11-29 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Exh. A2, p. 2.) Although he repeatedly told the parties that he needed to review the medical records, as noted above, Dr. Angerman was not provided those records to review. Thus, his opinions are not based upon an adequate medical history, and in turn, are not substantial evidence. Regarding the reports from QME Dr. Friedman, it is well settled that the relevant and considered opinions of one physician, though inconsistent with other medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence and that the Appeals Board may rely on the medical opinion of a single physician unless it is "based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess." (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525, 529].) Applicant argues that Dr. Friedman's opinions as to the issue of impairment "do not correlate with the reviewed diagnostic study [lumbar MRI]." (Petition, p. 4.) It is important to note that pursuant to the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, (AMA Guides):

  The WCJ's reliance on QME Dr. Friedman's reports was upheld as substantial evidence, while AME Dr. Angerman's reports were found not to be based on an adequate medical history and thus not substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10499216 · 2022-03-16 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant 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 December 17, 2020, 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 cervical, thoracic, and lumbosacral spine, to his bilateral shoulders, and his psyche; that applicant was temporarily disabled for the period from October 16, 2015, through June 30, 2017; that the injury caused 70% permanent disability; that the opinions of qualified medical examiner (QME) John W. Hill, D.C., are substantial evidence; and that the report from orthopedist Don Williams, M.D. was not admissible.

  The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the injury to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbosacral spine and psyche as accepted parts of body injured.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10261474 · 2022-02-04 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.73. Trial decisions. After carefully considering the entire record, I concluded that applicant met her burden of proof with respect to injury to her nervous and circulatory systems, consisting of Dr. Newkirk's reports which describe her condition as a "neurovascular compression syndrome." As mentioned above, I specifically excluded from this finding applicant's alleged cardiac arrhythmias. Likewise, I found sufficient support in Dr. Newkirk's reporting to deem applicant's legs and face compensable. And, on the basis of Dr. Carrigg's opinion in exhibit 13, I concluded that applicant's tinnitus arises from her industrially caused TOS and is therefore itself industrial. On the other hand, I found no compensable injury to the brain. Turning to the appropriate level of permanent disability, I was persuaded by the opinions of Dr. Newkirk and Ms.

  The WCJ found sufficient evidence to support compensability of injury to the nervous and circulatory systems, legs, face, and hearing based on medical reports, including Dr. Newkirk's and Dr. Carrigg's opinions, and rejected compensability of brain injury.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ7744441 · 2021-06-29 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2However, we find merit in applicant's contention that defendant failed to meet its burden of proving apportionment of the psychiatric permanent disability. (Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1114 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].) For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Dr. Petrakis's opinion on apportionment of the psychiatric disability is not substantial evidence. Without apportionment of the psychiatric disability, applicant is entitled to a permanent disability award of 71 percent. We will amend the WCJ's decision accordingly.

  Without apportionment of psychiatric disability, applicant is entitled to a permanent disability award of 71 percent based on combined orthopedic and psychiatric ratings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11580516 · 2021-06-25 · Sacramento District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We do not adopt or incorporate the report to the extent that it refers to Stephen Abelow, M.D., as a "PQME" (panel qualified medical examiner). In fact, Dr. Abelow was selected by the parties as an agreed medical examiner (AME). The WCJ properly relied upon the opinion of the AME, who the parties presumably chose because of the AME's expertise and neutrality. The WCJ was presented with no good reason to find the AME's opinion unpersuasive, and we also find none. (See Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].)

  The WCJ and panel gave great weight to the AME opinion of Dr. Abelow, finding no good reason to reject it despite some minor history inaccuracies.

  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.

• LAURA G. CHAPMAN & ASSOCIATES
• Laura G. Chapman & Associates
• LAURA CHAPMAN & ASSOCIATES
• Laura Chapman & Associates
• Law Offices of Laura Chapman and Associates
• Law Offices of Laura Chapman
• LAURA G.CHAPMAN & ASSOCIATES
• LAURA CHAPMAN AND ASSOCIATES
• LAW OFFICE OF LAURA CHAPMAN

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.