California WCABLaw firm

Borah & Shaffer

Borah & Shaffer is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at San Jose, then Salinas. The firm it meets most often is Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (2).

Decisions: 6
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 6 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

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

San Jose 5
Salinas 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.

4 for the applicant
1 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ7261956 · 2024-05-02 · San Jose District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Returning to the question of when applicant received notice of a finding of previous disability or impairment establishing her knowledge of probable SIBTF liability, the record reveals that she lacked any such notice until she received Dr. Newman's March 29, 2018, which opined that applicant's June 2, 2009 specific injury constituted a subsequent injury resulting in additional permanent partial disability to the right and left shoulders, that the resulting subsequent disabilities equaled more than 35 percent of applicant's total disability, and that she otherwise met the
The Appeals Board found that applicant was not on notice of a substantial likelihood of entitlement to SIBTF benefits until Dr. Newman's March 29, 2018 report, which met the Talcott standard for notice, making the petition timely as filed no later than October 30, 2017.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ9535221 · 2023-08-30 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 16, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that as a result of her October 1, 2011, industrial injury, applicant is permanently totally (100%) disabled.
The WCJ and WCAB found substantial evidence in the reports of Dr. Mahmoudi and Dr. Francis supporting addition of impairments rather than combination under the Combined Values Chart, resulting in a permanent total disability rating of 100%. Apportionment was applied as identified by the physicians, and the defendant's arguments to overturn this were rejected.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14033416 · 2023-07-03 · Salinas District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The court reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties, both documentary and testamentary. Based on the same, including, but not limited to, the testimony of the applicant, and medical reporting of Court Appointed Regular Physician Bruce J. Dreyfuss, M.D. dated February 13, 2023, and February 20, 2023, it was found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE on March 12, 2020, as a result of contracting COVID-19 and compensable sequences thereof.
The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE on March 12, 2020, from contracting COVID-19 at work, supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Dreyfuss showing increased risk compared to the general public.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10711761 · 2022-12-14 · San Jose District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3On December 9, 2020, the matter proceeded to an expedited hearing. The issues for adjudication were the need for future medical treatment in the form of medical transportation to medical appointments, whether the WCAB has jurisdiction over the transportation dispute in light of the November 5, 2020 UR denial, and whether there was good cause to terminate wheelchair transportation services in October 2020.
The WCAB found that defendant improperly terminated medical transportation services without medical evidence of changed condition and without proper utilization review, requiring continuation of services until a proper UR determination is made.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ6760522 · 2025-05-09 · San Jose District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4However, SIBTF benefits are not meant to displace an employer's liability. When an injured worker's subsequent injury results in 100% permanent disability, there is no need for SIBTF benefits to fill in the gap between an injured worker's entire permanent disability and the percentage of disability caused by the employment. Indeed, section 4751 explicitly provides that the subsequent additional permanent disability be partial. (§ 4751.)
Applicant's subsequent injury resulted in 100% permanent disability, which under Labor Code section 4751 and relevant case law disqualifies eligibility for SIBTF benefits because the subsequent injury must result in partial permanent disability, not total.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10644022 · 2023-06-16 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.
The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office cannot act while reconsideration is pending.
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.

Borah & Shaffer
Law Office of Borah & Shaffer
BORAH & SHAFFER

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 →

Borah & Shaffer

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

1 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ7261956 · 2024-05-02 · San Jose District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Returning to the question of when applicant received notice of a finding of previous disability or impairment establishing her knowledge of probable SIBTF liability, the record reveals that she lacked any such notice until she received Dr. Newman's March 29, 2018, which opined that applicant's June 2, 2009 specific injury constituted a subsequent injury resulting in additional permanent partial disability to the right and left shoulders, that the resulting subsequent disabilities equaled more than 35 percent of applicant's total disability, and that she otherwise met the

The Appeals Board found that applicant was not on notice of a substantial likelihood of entitlement to SIBTF benefits until Dr. Newman's March 29, 2018 report, which met the Talcott standard for notice, making the petition timely as filed no later than October 30, 2017.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ9535221 · 2023-08-30 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 16, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that as a result of her October 1, 2011, industrial injury, applicant is permanently totally (100%) disabled.

The WCJ and WCAB found substantial evidence in the reports of Dr. Mahmoudi and Dr. Francis supporting addition of impairments rather than combination under the Combined Values Chart, resulting in a permanent total disability rating of 100%. Apportionment was applied as identified by the physicians, and the defendant's arguments to overturn this were rejected.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14033416 · 2023-07-03 · Salinas District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The court reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties, both documentary and testamentary. Based on the same, including, but not limited to, the testimony of the applicant, and medical reporting of Court Appointed Regular Physician Bruce J. Dreyfuss, M.D. dated February 13, 2023, and February 20, 2023, it was found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE on March 12, 2020, as a result of contracting COVID-19 and compensable sequences thereof.

The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE on March 12, 2020, from contracting COVID-19 at work, supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Dreyfuss showing increased risk compared to the general public.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10711761 · 2022-12-14 · San Jose District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3On December 9, 2020, the matter proceeded to an expedited hearing. The issues for adjudication were the need for future medical treatment in the form of medical transportation to medical appointments, whether the WCAB has jurisdiction over the transportation dispute in light of the November 5, 2020 UR denial, and whether there was good cause to terminate wheelchair transportation services in October 2020.

The WCAB found that defendant improperly terminated medical transportation services without medical evidence of changed condition and without proper utilization review, requiring continuation of services until a proper UR determination is made.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ6760522 · 2025-05-09 · San Jose District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4However, SIBTF benefits are not meant to displace an employer's liability. When an injured worker's subsequent injury results in 100% permanent disability, there is no need for SIBTF benefits to fill in the gap between an injured worker's entire permanent disability and the percentage of disability caused by the employment. Indeed, section 4751 explicitly provides that the subsequent additional permanent disability be partial. (§ 4751.)

Applicant's subsequent injury resulted in 100% permanent disability, which under Labor Code section 4751 and relevant case law disqualifies eligibility for SIBTF benefits because the subsequent injury must result in partial permanent disability, not total.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10644022 · 2023-06-16 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office cannot act while reconsideration is pending.

Official decision · page 1 →