California WCABLaw firm
The Bridgeford Law Office
The Bridgeford Law Office is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (4) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Redding. The firm it meets most often is Albert and Mackenzie (2).
- Decisions
- 7
- Years
- 2022–2026
- Issues disputed
- 2
- District offices
- 3
Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 5 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.
1 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
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.
- ADJ20695668 · 2026-06-12 · Redding District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.8The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].)
The WCAB found the record insufficient to fairly determine the applicant's average weekly wage or earning capacity, deferring the issue for further evidentiary development.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ16800773 · 2024-07-24 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11The Arbitrator found the applicant was the initial physical aggressor and applicant's claim is barred by Labor Code § 3600(a)(7) and applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and incurring the course of his employment because he was the initial physical aggressor.
The Arbitrator found the applicant was the initial physical aggressor based on credible testimony, surveillance video, and police report, barring the claim under Labor Code 3600(a)(7).
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ16819991 · 2023-11-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O)1 issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 22, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his back on May 25, 2021; and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.
The WCJ's original decision was based on a finding that the injury date was inconsistent and that the QME's opinion was not based on an accurate history due to incomplete medical records. The WCAB found the record lacked substantial evidence and ordered further development of the record and a supplemental QME report.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ15117833 · 2023-05-26 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) March 9, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that applicant failed to sustain his burden of proving industrial injury arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) and ordered that applicant "take nothing further on this claim." Applicant contends that his injury was AOE/COE.
Applicant was injured on employer's premises while performing activities reasonably incidental to his employment, including picking up tools, which was not a substantial deviation from his duties, and even if he violated employer's rules, the injury still arose out of and in the course of employment.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14069848 · 2022-12-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of September 28, 2022, wherein it was found that while "employed on November 21, 2020 and/or during the period August 2020 through November 21, 2020, as a motorcycle mechanic," applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, shoulders, left arm, and elbows.
The WCJ erred in finding a cumulative injury contrary to the unrebutted medical opinion that the applicant sustained a specific injury on November 21, 2020. The Board granted reconsideration and amended the decision to find only a specific injury.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ17263528 · 2025-10-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, SCIF, has filed a petition for removal from the order of joinder issued on October 15, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy and that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied and the petition was dismissed to be treated as a petition to set aside joinder for hearing by the WCJ.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14069848 · 2022-09-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In its prayer for relief, defendant also appears to seek disqualification of WCJ Devine, requesting that the case be reassigned to an "impartial judge." (Petition, p. 8.) Nowhere else in its Petition does defendant discuss or provide the grounds for this request, which, in any event, fails to meet the requirements of Appeals Board Rule 10960, which governs petitions for disqualification of a WCJ. Appeals Board Rule 10960 states:
Defendant failed to file a supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating facts establishing grounds for disqualification, thus dismissal was appropriate.
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.
- THE BRIDGEFORD LAW OFFICE
- The Bridgeford Law Office
- THE BRIDGEFORD LAW OFFICE, APC
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.