Witkop Law

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Oakland 12
• San Jose 5
• Stockton 2
• Lodi 1
• Sacramento 1
• Salinas 1
• San Francisco 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.

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

Counted over 23 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 →
• ADJ16350553 · 2025-08-25 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 30, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the reporting of QME Dr. Lorenzo Hughes violated Labor Code section 46281; that the reporting does not constitute substantial medical evidence; and, that it must be stricken from the record. The WCJ also granted defendant's petition for a replacement QME panel and ordered that a replacement panel in pain medicine be provided within 30 days.

  The WCJ found Dr. Hughes violated section 4628 by allowing a third party to summarize medical records, but the WCAB found due process was not afforded to Dr. Hughes before striking the reports, so the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11073230 · 2025-03-24 · Lodi District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Bluewater Industries, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the December 13, 2024 Findings of Fact and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) found that applicant, while employed as an asbestos removal worker on September 25, 2017, sustained industrial injury to his lumbar spine resulting in permanent and total disability.

  The WCA found applicant's disability to be permanent and total based on vocational expert Simon's opinion that applicant was precluded from return to the open labor market, despite defense expert Westman's contrary opinion. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review this finding.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12953785 · 2024-08-22 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained a cumulative industrial injury to her bilateral wrists and hands, which resulted in 26% permanent partial disability after apportionment.

  The WCAB found that the applicant failed to rebut the PDRS for permanent total disability based on the AME's credible opinion and vocational evidence; however, the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof on apportionment because the AME's opinion was based on generalizations and not specific facts of the case. The applicant's permanent disability was found to be 35%.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11562102 · 2023-01-17 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, who is representing herself, seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's Findings of Fact, Award1 and Orders of October 26, 2022, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury in the form of acquired odor disorder while employed as a bus operator on September 19, 2018. The WCJ thus issued an order that the applicant take nothing by way of her workers' compensation claim.

  The WCJ found the opinion of QME Dr. Yip more persuasive than that of prior QME Dr. Shipp, based on applicant's consistent testimony that she did not smell noxious odors on the bus, which is critical to establishing industrial injury for acquired odor disorder. The WCJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence and proper procedural rules regarding evidence admission were followed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14533246 · 2022-04-11 · San Jose District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal or in the alternative reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 21, 2022. By the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant's objection to the report of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) was defective. The WCJ issued an order denying applicant's request for a replacement panel.

  The WCJ found the objection to the QME report was defective because the replacement panel request was made after receipt of the report, not before. The Appeals Board panel denied reconsideration, deferring to the WCJ's discretion to prevent 'doctor shopping'.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11360280 · 2021-12-22 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of October 15, 2021 wherein we found that, while employed as a bus operator during a cumulative period ending February 28, 2018, applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of cardiac arrest. All other issues were deferred. In finding industrial injury, we reversed a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award [sic]1, wherein it was found that, while employed as a bus driver during a cumulative period ending February 28, 2018, applicant did not sustain industrial injury in the form of cardiac arrest.2

  The WCAB found that the applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of cardiac arrest due to cumulative work stress, relying on the medical opinion of internist Dr. Juan C. Larach, who opined that work stress was a contributing cause of the cardiac arrest. The WCAB rejected the defense argument relying on psychologist Dr. Joshua Kirz's opinion, noting Dr. Kirz was not a medical doctor and not competent to opine on physical heart injury causation. The WCAB also clarified that Labor Code section 3208.3's heightened causation standard for psychiatric injuries does not apply to physical injuries like cardiac arrest.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9687495 · 2021-12-03 · Oakland District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In the instant case, the first three factors are the only that apply to this matter. First, with respect to the intensity of treatment, applicant underwent two surgeries to his lower back within five months, and had at least some pain relief following the fusion. He will need significant further treatment in the form of physician visits, physical therapy, medications and injections. Applicant also related in volume 3 of his deposition transcript that he may need additional surgery to remove hardware from his spine. This factor weighs the closest to catastrophic among the three applicable categories here.

  The Appeals Board found that the physical injury was significant but not catastrophic based on factors including treatment intensity, ultimate outcome, and impact on activities of daily living, relying on the orthopedic AME's opinion and applicant's deposition testimony.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11360280 · 2021-10-15 · Oakland District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In order to further study the factual and legal issues in this case, on September 7, 2021, we granted applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of two decisions issued concurrently by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 16, 2021. In a Findings and Award [sic] 1 issued in case ADJ11360280, it was found that, while employed as a bus driver during a cumulative period ending February 28, 2018, applicant did not sustain industrial injury in the form of cardiac arrest. In a Findings and Award [sic] issued in case ADJ12092966, it was found that applicant's industrial incident of November 23, 2016 did not cause later "cardiac arrest due to [post-traumatic stress disorder]." Applicant sustained admitted injury to the psyche on November 23, 2016 because of a sexual assault, but it was found that the psychiatric injury did not contribute to applicant's cardiac arrest or cause the need for any further medical treatment.

  The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not suffer from PTSD based on the agreed medical evaluator psychologist Dr. Kirz's opinion, which clarified the diagnosis as adjustment disorder with anxiety in sustained remission, not PTSD.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11073230 · 2021-09-22 · Stockton District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2According to the arbitrator's Report and the parties' pleadings, a hearing with the arbitrator was conducted telephonically on January 16, 2020 regarding in relevant part whether defendant's November 15, 2019 UR decision non-certifying lumbar spine surgery was timely communicated to the parties. There does not appear to be a transcript from this hearing outlining the parties' stipulations, the issues to be adjudicated or the evidence admitted into the record regarding the dispute.

  The Appeals Board could not address the challenge to the arbitrator's decision due to the absence of a record of the telephonic hearing, including stipulations, issues, and evidence admitted.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ9687495 · 2021-02-09 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3To date, no formal minutes of hearing or summary of evidence have been prepared on this matter as required by WCAB Rule 10787. We are unable to address the contentions raised by applicant in his Petition in the absence of a proper record of the proceedings including, at a minimum, an outline of the parties' stipulations, disputed issues to be adjudicated and identification of the exhibits.

  The Appeals Board found that the record was incomplete and lacked proper minutes of hearing and summary of evidence, preventing a proper decision on the catastrophic injury rating for the psyche. Therefore, the matter was remanded for further proceedings to develop a complete record.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ19265320 · 2026-01-30 · San Jose District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed or whether the existing record is sufficient to support the decision, order, and legal conclusions relating to whether defendant provided an EOR to Dr. Yen and, if so, when. The Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to order development of the record when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues consistent with due process. (See San Bernardino Community Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986]; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121§ 1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261, 264-265].)

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to support the WCJ's denial of payment and penalties due to lack of evidence on whether the Explanation of Review (EOR) was properly served, and granted reconsideration to develop the record further.

  Official decision · page 7 →

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.

• WITKOP LAW
• WITKOP LAW GROUP
• Witkop Law
• Witkop Law Group
• Witkop Law Firm

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.