California WCABLaw firm

Mitchell & Powell a P.L.C.

Mitchell & Powell a P.L.C. is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (4), Apportionment (3) and Permanent disability rating (3). They were heard most often at Fresno, then Bakersfield. The firm it meets most often is Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen (3).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 7 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

Fresno 9
Bakersfield 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.

6 for the applicant
4 returned for more record
3 for the defense

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ9826933 · 2026-06-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5II. The WCJ found that applicant was permanent and stationary or maximum medically improved (MMI) on July 12, 2023 (Finding of Fact No. 4). Defendant agrees that applicant was MMI on July 12, 2023, when Dr. Hyman assigned him 75% WPI. (Petition, at p. 3:18-19; 4:1-6.) Then, defendant contends that permanent total disability payments should therefore begin on July 12, 2023. In our en banc decision, Brower v. David Jones Constr. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550, we addressed the timing of permanent disability indemnity payments in relation to payment of temporary disability benefits.
The Board followed the en banc precedent in Brower, holding that permanent total disability indemnity payments start from the date permanent total disability is first established, not from the date the final level of disability is determined, thus payments start June 9, 2016, not July 12, 2023.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14697055 · 2026-01-20 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Here, based upon our review of the evidentiary record, and the totality of evidence, including the PQME reports of Dr. Lewis and P&S report of Dr. Silva, we believe the medical evidence supports a finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to the bilateral hips. In his report dated October 9, 2023, Dr. Silva reported that there was "bilateral hip pain following [the September 29, 2020] injury." He noted also that there was a demonstrated decrease in applicant's range of motion in the bilateral hips2 which ultimately resulted in permanent disability. (Exhibit 1, pp. 3, 8.) Similarly, Dr. Lewis, in his July 17, 2023 report, opined that applicant sustained compensable consequence injuries to the right knee and bilateral hips with symptoms of "increased discomfort and pain" as a result of the September 29, 2020 injury to the lumbar spine and left knee. (Exhibit C, p. 55.) The medical reporting of both, Drs. Silva and Lewis, however, fail to address whether the cumulative injury also contributed to injury AOE/COE, and if so, the extent of impairment, and allocation of impairment, between the two injuries.
The medical evidence, including reports from Dr. Lewis and Dr. Silva, supports a finding of injury AOE/COE to the bilateral hips, contrary to the WCJ's original finding.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ13081167 · 2026-01-16 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7In contrast to the issue of whether multiple periods of employment may have caused decedent's injury, as implicated by sections 3212.1 and 5500.5 discussed above, if there is one cumulative injury, as was stipulated here, then there can be only one section 5412 date of injury. In his November 2, 2018 report, Dr. Wiseman confirmed that December 5, 2017 was the first date upon which a diagnosis of industrially related cancer was reported and known to decedent. (Exhibit B, p. 31.) Accordingly, the WCJ found December 5, 2017 to be the date of injury for section 5412 purposes. Defendant provides no relevant evidence to contradict this finding, and we find no basis upon which to disturb it. As such, we agree with the WCJ's finding of December 5, 2017 as the date of injury under section 5412.
The WCJ's finding of December 5, 2017 as the injury date under section 5412 is supported by Dr. Wiseman's medical opinion and the parties' stipulations; liability under section 5500.5 is deferred and related to the period of employment exposure.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ10413544 · 2025-12-09 · Fresno District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Turning now to the merits of the Petition, in Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.), the Appeals Board held that if there is substantial medical evidence that two or more impairments have a synergistic effect which causes the resulting impairment to be greater than that reflected through use of the CVC, the impairments should be added for purposes of accuracy. In Kite, the applicant underwent bilateral hip replacement surgeries and the orthopedic QME opined that due to a "synergistic effect of the injury to the same body parts bilaterally versus body parts from different regions of the body," "the best way to combine the impairments to the right and left hips would be to add them versus using the combined values chart, which would result in a lower whole person impairment." (Id. at p. 5.) Accordingly, the WCJ in Kite found that the impairment for the applicant's hips should be added rather than combined.
Applicant successfully rebutted the CVC by showing synergistic effects on ADLs, supporting use of the addition method for impairment rating.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ14609243 · 2025-10-13 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentremanded
Determinative passage · p.3The only disputed issues deal with the impairment caused by the ulcerative colitis, and the apportionment of industrial versus non-industrial disability, Both issues were arguably addressed by QME Dr. Gwartz in his report admitted into evidence. It was the conclusion of Dr. Gwartz that the impairment should be apportioned 30% to industrial factors and 70% to non-industrial factors.
The WCJ found Dr. Gwartz's opinion self-contradictory and insufficient as substantial medical evidence to support apportionment. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the record and merits, deferring final decision.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ19198086 · 2025-08-25 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. Section 3208.3(d) provides in pertinent part that "no compensation shall be paid pursuant to this division for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an employer unless the employee has been employed by that employer for at least six months. The six months of employment need not be continuous." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(d).)
The Appeals Board found the applicant's credible testimony that employment began on April 6, 2022, with onboarding activities constituting actual service under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Defendant failed to prove the employment period was insufficient and did not rebut the stipulation that applicant was employed on November 1, 2022.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10192449 · 2024-09-12 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In the instant case, in his initial July 13, 2023 report, Dr. Graham indicated that there "will be apportionment" for applicant's lumbar spine given "anticipated degenerative changes." (Joint Exhibit AA, AME Report of Dr. Graham, July 13, 2023, p. 10, emphasis added.) In making this determination, it appears that Dr. Graham had not yet reviewed the medical file in this case. In his subsequent July 24, 2023 report, Dr. Graham found 50% apportionment to the lumbar spine based upon applicant's "preexisting condition." (Joint Exhibit BB, AME Report of Dr. Graham, July 24, 2023, p. 3.) No further explanation was provided. In his final January 2, 2024 report, Dr. Graham explained that his apportionment findings were written "to comport with Dr. Klassen's analysis." (Joint Exhibit CC, AME Report of Dr. Graham, January 2, 2024, p. 3.) Ultimately, Dr. Graham's findings are not only speculative but lacking in reasoning. It appears that rather than provide his own opinions, Dr. Graham opted instead to adopt those of Dr. Klassen with no basis or rationale. We therefore agree with the WCJ that Dr. Graham has failed to provide a "comprehensive explanation" for apportionment and as such, his apportionment findings "do not amount to substantial medical evidence." (Report, pp. 7-8.)
The WCJ found Dr. Graham's apportionment findings were speculative, lacking reasoning, and adopted Dr. Klassen's analysis without basis, thus not substantial medical evidence.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12309738 · 2022-10-28 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5The Panel QME in the case spent face-to-face time with Applicant, took a detailed history, physically examined, and evaluated him and performed necessary and relevant testing. Dr. Shorr also reviewed medical records and gave well-reasoned, cogent opinions and conclusions. It was undersigned's conclusion that Dr. Shorr's reports, and deposition are substantial evidence... (Report, p. 6, italics and underlining in original.) Based on our review of the trial record, we agree with the WCJ that Dr. Shorr's reports, and deposition testimony are substantial evidence that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE, in the form of a stroke and the resulting conditions. Also, as the WCJ noted, there is no medical evidence in the record controverting or otherwise inconsistent with Dr. Shorr's opinions. Defendant argues that the reports from biomechanics expert Kenneth A.
The WCJ and WCAB found Dr. Shorr's medical opinions substantial and persuasive that applicant's stroke and carotid dissection were industrially caused by work activities, rejecting Dr. Solomon's biomechanical opinions as non-medical and legally insufficient.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10837400 · 2024-02-02 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, Award on October 31, 2023. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Thursday, November 30, 2023 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on December 4, 2023 is untimely and will be dismissed.
The petition was filed after the 30-day deadline from the date of the WCJ's decision, making it untimely and depriving the Board of jurisdiction.
Official decision · page 2 →

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.

MITCHELL & POWELL
Mitchell & Powell A P.L.C.
Mitchell & Powell

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 →

Mitchell & Powell a P.L.C.

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

4 returned for more record

3 for the defense

Decisions

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

ADJ9826933 · 2026-06-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5II. The WCJ found that applicant was permanent and stationary or maximum medically improved (MMI) on July 12, 2023 (Finding of Fact No. 4). Defendant agrees that applicant was MMI on July 12, 2023, when Dr. Hyman assigned him 75% WPI. (Petition, at p. 3:18-19; 4:1-6.) Then, defendant contends that permanent total disability payments should therefore begin on July 12, 2023. In our en banc decision, Brower v. David Jones Constr. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550, we addressed the timing of permanent disability indemnity payments in relation to payment of temporary disability benefits.

The Board followed the en banc precedent in Brower, holding that permanent total disability indemnity payments start from the date permanent total disability is first established, not from the date the final level of disability is determined, thus payments start June 9, 2016, not July 12, 2023.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14697055 · 2026-01-20 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Here, based upon our review of the evidentiary record, and the totality of evidence, including the PQME reports of Dr. Lewis and P&S report of Dr. Silva, we believe the medical evidence supports a finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to the bilateral hips. In his report dated October 9, 2023, Dr. Silva reported that there was "bilateral hip pain following [the September 29, 2020] injury." He noted also that there was a demonstrated decrease in applicant's range of motion in the bilateral hips2 which ultimately resulted in permanent disability. (Exhibit 1, pp. 3, 8.) Similarly, Dr. Lewis, in his July 17, 2023 report, opined that applicant sustained compensable consequence injuries to the right knee and bilateral hips with symptoms of "increased discomfort and pain" as a result of the September 29, 2020 injury to the lumbar spine and left knee. (Exhibit C, p. 55.) The medical reporting of both, Drs. Silva and Lewis, however, fail to address whether the cumulative injury also contributed to injury AOE/COE, and if so, the extent of impairment, and allocation of impairment, between the two injuries.

The medical evidence, including reports from Dr. Lewis and Dr. Silva, supports a finding of injury AOE/COE to the bilateral hips, contrary to the WCJ's original finding.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ13081167 · 2026-01-16 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7In contrast to the issue of whether multiple periods of employment may have caused decedent's injury, as implicated by sections 3212.1 and 5500.5 discussed above, if there is one cumulative injury, as was stipulated here, then there can be only one section 5412 date of injury. In his November 2, 2018 report, Dr. Wiseman confirmed that December 5, 2017 was the first date upon which a diagnosis of industrially related cancer was reported and known to decedent. (Exhibit B, p. 31.) Accordingly, the WCJ found December 5, 2017 to be the date of injury for section 5412 purposes. Defendant provides no relevant evidence to contradict this finding, and we find no basis upon which to disturb it. As such, we agree with the WCJ's finding of December 5, 2017 as the date of injury under section 5412.

The WCJ's finding of December 5, 2017 as the injury date under section 5412 is supported by Dr. Wiseman's medical opinion and the parties' stipulations; liability under section 5500.5 is deferred and related to the period of employment exposure.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ10413544 · 2025-12-09 · Fresno District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Turning now to the merits of the Petition, in Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.), the Appeals Board held that if there is substantial medical evidence that two or more impairments have a synergistic effect which causes the resulting impairment to be greater than that reflected through use of the CVC, the impairments should be added for purposes of accuracy. In Kite, the applicant underwent bilateral hip replacement surgeries and the orthopedic QME opined that due to a "synergistic effect of the injury to the same body parts bilaterally versus body parts from different regions of the body," "the best way to combine the impairments to the right and left hips would be to add them versus using the combined values chart, which would result in a lower whole person impairment." (Id. at p. 5.) Accordingly, the WCJ in Kite found that the impairment for the applicant's hips should be added rather than combined.

Applicant successfully rebutted the CVC by showing synergistic effects on ADLs, supporting use of the addition method for impairment rating.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ14609243 · 2025-10-13 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentremanded

Determinative passage · p.3The only disputed issues deal with the impairment caused by the ulcerative colitis, and the apportionment of industrial versus non-industrial disability, Both issues were arguably addressed by QME Dr. Gwartz in his report admitted into evidence. It was the conclusion of Dr. Gwartz that the impairment should be apportioned 30% to industrial factors and 70% to non-industrial factors.

The WCJ found Dr. Gwartz's opinion self-contradictory and insufficient as substantial medical evidence to support apportionment. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the record and merits, deferring final decision.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ19198086 · 2025-08-25 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. Section 3208.3(d) provides in pertinent part that "no compensation shall be paid pursuant to this division for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an employer unless the employee has been employed by that employer for at least six months. The six months of employment need not be continuous." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(d).)

The Appeals Board found the applicant's credible testimony that employment began on April 6, 2022, with onboarding activities constituting actual service under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Defendant failed to prove the employment period was insufficient and did not rebut the stipulation that applicant was employed on November 1, 2022.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10192449 · 2024-09-12 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In the instant case, in his initial July 13, 2023 report, Dr. Graham indicated that there "will be apportionment" for applicant's lumbar spine given "anticipated degenerative changes." (Joint Exhibit AA, AME Report of Dr. Graham, July 13, 2023, p. 10, emphasis added.) In making this determination, it appears that Dr. Graham had not yet reviewed the medical file in this case. In his subsequent July 24, 2023 report, Dr. Graham found 50% apportionment to the lumbar spine based upon applicant's "preexisting condition." (Joint Exhibit BB, AME Report of Dr. Graham, July 24, 2023, p. 3.) No further explanation was provided. In his final January 2, 2024 report, Dr. Graham explained that his apportionment findings were written "to comport with Dr. Klassen's analysis." (Joint Exhibit CC, AME Report of Dr. Graham, January 2, 2024, p. 3.) Ultimately, Dr. Graham's findings are not only speculative but lacking in reasoning. It appears that rather than provide his own opinions, Dr. Graham opted instead to adopt those of Dr. Klassen with no basis or rationale. We therefore agree with the WCJ that Dr. Graham has failed to provide a "comprehensive explanation" for apportionment and as such, his apportionment findings "do not amount to substantial medical evidence." (Report, pp. 7-8.)

The WCJ found Dr. Graham's apportionment findings were speculative, lacking reasoning, and adopted Dr. Klassen's analysis without basis, thus not substantial medical evidence.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12309738 · 2022-10-28 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5The Panel QME in the case spent face-to-face time with Applicant, took a detailed history, physically examined, and evaluated him and performed necessary and relevant testing. Dr. Shorr also reviewed medical records and gave well-reasoned, cogent opinions and conclusions. It was undersigned's conclusion that Dr. Shorr's reports, and deposition are substantial evidence... (Report, p. 6, italics and underlining in original.) Based on our review of the trial record, we agree with the WCJ that Dr. Shorr's reports, and deposition testimony are substantial evidence that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE, in the form of a stroke and the resulting conditions. Also, as the WCJ noted, there is no medical evidence in the record controverting or otherwise inconsistent with Dr. Shorr's opinions. Defendant argues that the reports from biomechanics expert Kenneth A.

The WCJ and WCAB found Dr. Shorr's medical opinions substantial and persuasive that applicant's stroke and carotid dissection were industrially caused by work activities, rejecting Dr. Solomon's biomechanical opinions as non-medical and legally insufficient.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10837400 · 2024-02-02 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, Award on October 31, 2023. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Thursday, November 30, 2023 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on December 4, 2023 is untimely and will be dismissed.

The petition was filed after the 30-day deadline from the date of the WCJ's decision, making it untimely and depriving the Board of jurisdiction.

Official decision · page 2 →