California WCABLaw firm

Butts & Johnson

Butts & Johnson is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2014–2025. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (2), AOE/COE (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at San Jose. The firm it meets most often is Littler Mendelson, P.C. (2).

Decisions: 7
Years: 2014–2025
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 of 7 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

1 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

San Jose 7

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.

6 for the applicant
1 returned for more record

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.

ADJ8906863 · 2023-02-17 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.51. applicant, while employed during the period 7/17/2012 through 8/4/2012 in a capacity remaining in dispute in various locations beginning and ending in San Jose California by Hitachi Global Storage, insured for worker's compensation liability by Tokio Marine Insurance, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of this employment to his lungs and body systems in the form of Legionella Pneumonia as described in the medical reports admitted into evidence herein.
The injury was found to be compensable as it arose out of and in the course of employment, with exposure to Legionella Pneumonia occurring during travel for employer business, and no evidence of exposure in the employee's personal life or local community risk.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ1351389 · 2022-07-06 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.1In our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration of June 17, 2019, we affirmed the unapportioned award of permanent and total disability issued by the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) in his Second Amended Findings and Award of September 22, 2017. In its decision of May 7, 2021, however, the Court of Appeal annulled our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration of June 17, 2019 and remanded the matter to the WCAB for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. In sum, the Court concluded that the award of 100 percent permanent disability must be annulled because: (a) the psychiatric reports that the WCAB relied on did not constitute substantial evidence since Dr. Sidle relied on an incorrect legal theory, the alternative path theory, that was rejected in Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 607 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680]; and (b) applicant's evidence was otherwise insufficient to rebut the scheduled rating for her psychiatric disability.
The Court of Appeal annulled the prior permanent disability award because the psychiatric reports relied upon were not substantial evidence due to reliance on a rejected legal theory, and the applicant's evidence was insufficient to rebut the scheduled rating for psychiatric disability. The Court also clarified the burden of proof for apportionment and the conditions for a single award of permanent disability.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3516476 · 2021-04-23 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.24. Applicant seeks Reconsideration based upon use of the CVC instead of the Multiple Disabilities Table. Applicant is [] correct. Defendant contends that (1) it was improper to rely upon the report of Dr. Ng, which is alleged to be insubstantial, and (2) it was improper to rely upon the report of Dr. Graubard, which is alleged to be insubstantial, and (3) it was improper to rely upon the report of Dr. Gravina, which is alleged to be insubstantial.
The Board found the reports of the AMEs (Drs. Ng, Graubard, and Gravina) to be persuasive and properly relied upon, rejecting defendant's contentions about their insufficiency. The Board found no apportionment was proper as defendant failed to meet its burden of proof. The Board corrected the rating method from CVC to MDT, increasing the PD rating from 67% to 72%.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ802221 · 2014-05-21 · San Jose District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.117 (WCJ) found that applicant's admitted December 20, 2005 injury to his low back, psyche and right knee
The WCJ's finding of 100% permanent total disability is supported by substantial medical evidence including AME and vocational expert opinions, and the Appeals Board affirms the award of permanent total disability indemnity and medical-legal costs.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ1703796 · 2025-11-18 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On September 5, 2025, we issued our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Decision). In that Decision, we rescinded the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on January 22, 2021, by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant did not rebut the presumption of receipt of the notice of intention (NIT) or the Order Dismissing and did not show good cause to vacate the September 6, 2016 Order Dismissing. We substituted a new F&O, which found that applicant rebutted the presumption of receipt and that applicant demonstrated good cause to vacate the Order Dismissing her case and ordered that the Petition to Vacate was granted and that the Order Dismissing was rescinded.
The Board found that applicant rebutted the presumption of mailing of the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and Order Dismissing, and that due process required setting aside the Order Dismissing because applicant did not receive adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ1703796 · 2025-09-05 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Here, applicant credibly testified that she did not receive the NIT. Thus, she was not provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, and as a practical matter, if she did not receive the NIT, she could not object to it. Since the Order Dismissing is premised upon the notice and opportunity to be heard provided by the NIT, the Order is void. Moreover, if applicant did not receive the Order Dismissing, she was not provided with notice and an opportunity to challenge the Order. We also observe that the failure to provide applicant with the requisite due process is in itself good cause to set aside the Order Dismissing.
Applicant rebutted the presumption of receipt of the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and the Order Dismissing with credible testimony, showing she did not receive the notices. Due process required actual notice and opportunity to be heard, which was not provided, constituting good cause to vacate the Order Dismissing.
Official decision · page 6 →

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.

BUTTS & JOHNSON
Butts & Johnson

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 →

Butts & Johnson

Decisions

Years

2014–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

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.

ADJ8906863 · 2023-02-17 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.51. applicant, while employed during the period 7/17/2012 through 8/4/2012 in a capacity remaining in dispute in various locations beginning and ending in San Jose California by Hitachi Global Storage, insured for worker's compensation liability by Tokio Marine Insurance, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of this employment to his lungs and body systems in the form of Legionella Pneumonia as described in the medical reports admitted into evidence herein.

The injury was found to be compensable as it arose out of and in the course of employment, with exposure to Legionella Pneumonia occurring during travel for employer business, and no evidence of exposure in the employee's personal life or local community risk.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ1351389 · 2022-07-06 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.1In our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration of June 17, 2019, we affirmed the unapportioned award of permanent and total disability issued by the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) in his Second Amended Findings and Award of September 22, 2017. In its decision of May 7, 2021, however, the Court of Appeal annulled our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration of June 17, 2019 and remanded the matter to the WCAB for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. In sum, the Court concluded that the award of 100 percent permanent disability must be annulled because: (a) the psychiatric reports that the WCAB relied on did not constitute substantial evidence since Dr. Sidle relied on an incorrect legal theory, the alternative path theory, that was rejected in Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 607 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680]; and (b) applicant's evidence was otherwise insufficient to rebut the scheduled rating for her psychiatric disability.

The Court of Appeal annulled the prior permanent disability award because the psychiatric reports relied upon were not substantial evidence due to reliance on a rejected legal theory, and the applicant's evidence was insufficient to rebut the scheduled rating for psychiatric disability. The Court also clarified the burden of proof for apportionment and the conditions for a single award of permanent disability.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3516476 · 2021-04-23 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.24. Applicant seeks Reconsideration based upon use of the CVC instead of the Multiple Disabilities Table. Applicant is [] correct. Defendant contends that (1) it was improper to rely upon the report of Dr. Ng, which is alleged to be insubstantial, and (2) it was improper to rely upon the report of Dr. Graubard, which is alleged to be insubstantial, and (3) it was improper to rely upon the report of Dr. Gravina, which is alleged to be insubstantial.

The Board found the reports of the AMEs (Drs. Ng, Graubard, and Gravina) to be persuasive and properly relied upon, rejecting defendant's contentions about their insufficiency. The Board found no apportionment was proper as defendant failed to meet its burden of proof. The Board corrected the rating method from CVC to MDT, increasing the PD rating from 67% to 72%.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ802221 · 2014-05-21 · San Jose District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.117 (WCJ) found that applicant's admitted December 20, 2005 injury to his low back, psyche and right knee

The WCJ's finding of 100% permanent total disability is supported by substantial medical evidence including AME and vocational expert opinions, and the Appeals Board affirms the award of permanent total disability indemnity and medical-legal costs.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ1703796 · 2025-11-18 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On September 5, 2025, we issued our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Decision). In that Decision, we rescinded the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on January 22, 2021, by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant did not rebut the presumption of receipt of the notice of intention (NIT) or the Order Dismissing and did not show good cause to vacate the September 6, 2016 Order Dismissing. We substituted a new F&O, which found that applicant rebutted the presumption of receipt and that applicant demonstrated good cause to vacate the Order Dismissing her case and ordered that the Petition to Vacate was granted and that the Order Dismissing was rescinded.

The Board found that applicant rebutted the presumption of mailing of the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and Order Dismissing, and that due process required setting aside the Order Dismissing because applicant did not receive adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ1703796 · 2025-09-05 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Here, applicant credibly testified that she did not receive the NIT. Thus, she was not provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, and as a practical matter, if she did not receive the NIT, she could not object to it. Since the Order Dismissing is premised upon the notice and opportunity to be heard provided by the NIT, the Order is void. Moreover, if applicant did not receive the Order Dismissing, she was not provided with notice and an opportunity to challenge the Order. We also observe that the failure to provide applicant with the requisite due process is in itself good cause to set aside the Order Dismissing.

Applicant rebutted the presumption of receipt of the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and the Order Dismissing with credible testimony, showing she did not receive the notices. Due process required actual notice and opportunity to be heard, which was not provided, constituting good cause to vacate the Order Dismissing.

Official decision · page 6 →