ADJ14369406 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Petition for Reconsideration filed June 9, 2025, after Findings and Award issued May 27, 2025; WCJ report and Opinion on Decision adopted by Appeals Board

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

LiensDefendant prevailedarms · shoulders · lumbar spine

The lien claimant was awarded 7.5% of the permanent disability award based on their efforts in representation, balanced against the applicant's self-representation at trial.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Lien claimant filed applications, represented applicant through panel QME process, and obtained QME report used for permanent disability award.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supported awarding lien claimant 7.5% of permanent disability award as reasonable fee for services rendered.

From the decision · page 7

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Documentary evidencefavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant's attorney fee agreement with Buzzell Law Group covering claims against Container Management including cumulative trauma claim

From the decision · page 5Among applicant's exhibit at trial was an attorney fee agreement with Buzzell Law Group on March 8, 2021. (Applicant's Exhibit 20, admitted at the April 15, 2025 trial.) The agreement stated that the client (the applicant) was an attorney in a claim against the employer Container Management Services and "possibly others as future investigations may indicate." (Id.) It appears from the petition for reconsideration that applicant is arguing that it is a false contract as he did not intend to file a cumulative trauma case. There is nothing in evidence that this contract was false, or procured by fraud. His agreement with lien claimant specifically stated that they are representing him in claims against Container Management. (Id.) The fee agreement did not limit the representation to just a specific injury, so if the medical records indicated that the applicant also sustained a cumulative trauma injury, the agreement did cover that claim as well. In addition, the panel QME attributed the industrial disability for the lumbar spine to the cumulative trauma claim. Absent the filing of the claim for a cumulative trauma, applicant would not have received any permanent disability for the lumbar spine injury, or an award of medical care for the lumbar spine.

activities of daily livingfavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant represented himself at trial but introduced evidence obtained through former attorney's efforts

From the decision · page 5The lien claimant did file two applications on behalf of the applicant. They represented him through the panel QME process and obtained the reporting from a panel QME upon which my award of permanent disability was based. the applicant did represent himself at the July 22, 2024 trial, but introduced evidence obtained through the efforts of his former attorney. I balanced the efforts in representation of both the lien claimant and the applicant when I awarded 7.5% of the total amount of permanent disability to lien claimant.

ADJ14369406 · August 18, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page