Chain Cohn Clark

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Permanent disability rating1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Bakersfield 6
• Sacramento 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 defense
• 2 returned for more record
• 1 for the applicant

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.

• ADJ15342092 · 2024-06-24 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the April 4, 2024 Findings of Fact issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his left upper extremity and left wrist, while employed as an equipment operator on August 9, 2021. The WCJ further found that the injury was not caused by serious and willful misconduct of the applicant. In addition, the WCJ stated, in the Opinion on Decision, that the taking of an unauthorized break did not remove applicant from the course of employment. Pursuant to our authority, we accept defendant's supplemental pleading. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.)

  Further review required to determine if injury was compensable and if applicant was engaged in activity reasonably contemplated by employment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14258730 · 2023-10-13 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The issue we face in the instant case is whether substantial evidence supports the finding that the applicant sustained injury AOE/COE. On the record before us, substantial evidence does not support the finding that the injury occurred AOE/COE. QME Dr. Zagelbaum concluded that "If it can be confirmed and substantiated that the applicant's job created environmental conditions which causally contributed to his encountering exposure to the coronavirus which resulted in his developing COVID-19 infection in early December 2020 and contributed to his pre-existing long- term liver disease and triggered hospitalization several days later, then his death would be (at least 1%) work-related." (Ex. 5, p. 97, emphasis added.) However, Dr. Zagelbaum did not make any conclusion as to how likely it was that his job created environmental conditions which causally contributed to his encountering exposure to Covid-19. This conclusion does not support a finding of AOE/COE as it is based on surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess. (See Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 169.)

  The WCAB found that the QME's opinion was speculative and did not establish substantial evidence that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The WCJ's finding was rescinded and the case was remanded for further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10320494 · 2023-07-24 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4In ADJ10320494, applicant, age 53, while employed as an attorney on September 16, 2015, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the heart, left shoulder, and in the form of deep vein thrombosis.

  The WCJ's findings of 78% permanent disability for the specific injury and 26% for the cumulative trauma injury were supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. O'Neill and Dr. Schengel, including apportionment of 60% to nonindustrial factors for hypertension.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14684214 · 2026-05-05 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on March 10, 2026 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13812292 · 2026-03-27 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Rulings and Orders Admitting Evidence and Joint Findings of Fact, Discovery Order, and Opinion on Decision issued by the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) on November 26, 2025. The PWCJ found, in relevant part, that on August 24, 2019, while employed by defendant as a maintenance worker, applicant sustained a specific industrial injury to his left hip, cervical spine, thoracic spine, left shoulder, left elbow, and left knee and claims to have sustained injury to his upper back, right knee, and right shoulder. Applicant was further found to have sustained a specific industrial injury to his lower back and abdomen on January 2, 2020, while employed by defendant as a maintenance worker. The PWCJ issued a ruling and order to not receive into evidence, the Doctor's First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness (Doctor's First Report) by Kayvon Yadidi, D.O. dated June 22, 2018. The PWCJ further issued Discovery Orders denying defendant's petition for a discovery order requiring applicant to execute a social security release and granting in part, defendant's petition for a discovery order authorizing a further deposition of the applicant only to the extent of applicant's activities of daily living and their interactions as well as changes in applicant's physical condition since the May 22, 2023 deposition.

  The Appeals Board found the PWCJ's decision to be a final order subject to reconsideration and denied the petition because defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16283486 · 2023-03-13 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on June 16, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, we vacate our order granting reconsideration and dismiss the Petition.

  Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner while pending, leading to dismissal and vacating of prior order granting reconsideration.

  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.

• CHAIN COHN CLARK
• Chain Cohn Clark

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.