Shatford Law

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 16
• Sacramento 7
• Redding 3
• Santa Rosa 3
• Anaheim 2
• Riverside 2
• Eureka 1
• Lodi 1
• Salinas 1
• San Diego 1
• San Francisco 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.

• 20 for the defense
• 12 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 37 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.

• ADJ9744423 · 2026-03-27 · Sacramento District OfficeSJDB voucherapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ issued a finding that defendant mailed the SJDV to applicant's address on the Official Address Record, which appears correct. However, the unrebutted testimony of applicant is that he was not living at that address at the time of service and that he did not receive the voucher. The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible. (See Garza, supra.) Thus, the evidentiary presumption is rebutted, and we will find that applicant did not receive the SJDV that defendant mailed in 2019.

  Applicant's credible testimony that he did not receive the voucher rebutted the presumption of receipt, leading to a finding that applicant did not receive the voucher mailed to the official address record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11190499 · 2026-03-23 · Redding District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Here, applicant requested orders directing the Medical Unit to provide QME panels in neurology and oncology, on September 10, 2020 and again on February 10, 2022. In the September 10, 2020 request, applicant explained that the request for the two QME panels was based on the recommendation of Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Dr. Albert Kastle, who recommended in his deposition that additional medical experts evaluate applicant's claims of lymphoma and encephalitis. (Applicant's Exh. 9, 9/10/20 Petition for Order to Medical Unit, at p. 3.) The record indicates that no action was taken on this petition. A second petition, filed February 10, 2022, reiterated the request for an order that these QME panels issue. (Joint Exh. O, 2/10/22 Petition for Order to Medical Unit.) Although this request was listed as an issue for trial at the March 29, 2022 proceeding, no findings or orders were entered as to this issue in the July 5, 2022 F&O. (3/29/22 Minutes; 7/5/22 F&O.) Thus, to date, it appears that panels in neurology and oncology have not issued.

  The Board granted the petition for QME panels to issue to develop the record regarding claimed injuries in neurology and oncology.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ9400358 · 2026-03-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Order (F&O) issued on June 7, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that Labor Code section 54051 time-barred applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits thereby resulting in him taking nothing from his claims filed herein.

  The WCJ found the claim time-barred under section 5405, but the WCAB found the record insufficient to determine the last date of employer-provided medical treatment to toll the statute of limitations and remanded for further development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10418270 · 2025-09-09 · Lodi District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Based on the foregoing, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the WCJ's Findings of Fact and substitute new Findings of Fact, which defer the issue of lien claimant's lien for attorney's fees. This matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision, and a new decision from which any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration.

  Lien claimant was not required to object to the C&R or seek reconsideration of the OACR to preserve its lien rights; WCJ erred in finding the lien time-barred; issue deferred for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10728990 · 2025-07-25 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The applicant appears to be extremely focused on the mechanism of exposure. Dr. Allems, a toxicology, occupational and environmental medicine, and internal medicine specialist who was acting as panel QME following the panel selection process for a represented applicant, opined as to the time lines supported by the applicant's medical testing.

  The panel QME's medical opinion established that the applicant contracted HIV many years before the claimed date of injury, making the claim for industrial injury arising from exposure during employment unsupported.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12487271 · 2024-11-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order, issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 5, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that Applicant's employment was terminated for reasons unrelated to his industrial accident and ordered that applicant take nothing in connection with his application for benefits under Labor Code section1 132a.

  Applicant failed to prove he made known his intention to file a workers' compensation claim at the time of termination and employer established a valid business reason for termination.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15334962 · 2024-06-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the March 6, 2024 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found that applicant had not met his burden of proof demonstrating that he sustained cumulative injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to various body parts while employed by defendant as bar barback from September 24, 2019 to August 24, 2020, and was therefore not entitled to any compensation in this case.

  Applicant failed to prove injury AOE/COE due to inconsistent testimony, lack of medical treatment during employment, and credible defense testimony.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13081250 · 2024-05-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the February 14, 2024 Findings and Award ("F&A"), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant sustained a work-related injury to his back on March 13, 2017, but that applicant sustained no permanent disability as a result of the injury, that he did not require any further medical treatment, and that applicant was therefore due no further compensation. (F&A, at pp. 1§ 2.)1 Applicant asserts that the WCJ erred in basing her conclusions on the reporting of Panel Qualified Medical Examiner ("QME") Ronald Wolfson, M.D. because the reports are not substantial medical evidence.

  The WCJ failed to address the merits of the applicant's contention that the QME report was not substantial evidence, which is required by law; the WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings to consider this issue.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12733273 · 2024-04-15 · Santa Rosa District OfficeApportionmentdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We will grant reconsideration and amend the WCJ's decision to defer the issue of apportionment, since any findings regarding apportionment are premature prior to any findings regarding the permanent impairment to be apportioned. Labor Code section 4663 states, "A physician shall make an apportionment determination by finding what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by the direct result of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was

  The Board found the apportionment determination premature because permanent disability had not yet been determined, so the issue was deferred.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12214846 · 2024-03-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury occurred arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his legs and right arm on May 3, 2019, when applicant was beaten and shot by a third-party assailant at the workplace. In particular, the WCJ found the attack industrial because the employer assisted the assailant, who owned a neighboring farm, in locating applicant.

  The WCJ found the injury industrial because the employer assisted the assailant in locating applicant and attempting to restrain applicant, which was sufficient to find injury AOE/COE. The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to reject them. The facts distinguished this case from Transactron, where the employer did not assist the assailant. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13490319 · 2024-03-06 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In Navarro v. City of Montebello (2014) 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 418 (Appeals Board en banc), the Appeals Board held en banc that the "Labor Code does not require an employee to return to the same panel QME for an evaluation of a subsequent claim of injury." (Navarro, supra, 79 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 420.)

  The Appeals Board en banc in Navarro held that an employee is entitled to a new QME evaluation for a subsequent claim of injury filed on a new claim form, regardless of whether the injury involves the same body parts or employer, and the Labor Code provisions support this interpretation.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ16280220 · 2024-02-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 21, 2023. By the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain a specific injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on July 7, 2021 to her back, hips, legs, foot, wrist plantar fasciitis, stress, anxiety, psyche, and insomnia.1 As a result, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her claim.

  The WCJ found the applicant did not provide sufficient credible evidence to prove a specific injury on July 7, 2021. The medical reports from Dr. Tsaltskan and Dr. Rodriguez did not reference the injury date or provide substantial evidence. The WCJ's credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence, including contradictory testimony from the defense witness.

  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.

• SHATFORD LAW
• Shatford Law

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.