Duncan Cassio Lucchesi Binkley & Van Doren

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Fresno 11
• Bakersfield 2
• Sacramento 2
• Lodi 1
• Long Beach 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.

• 8 for the applicant
• 7 for the defense
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 16 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.

• ADJ13553712 · 2026-08-10 · Fresno District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.91. the applicant, while employed during the period January 10, 2019, through January 10, 2020, as a certified nursing assistant, Occupational Group Number 340, at Tulare, California, by Tulare Nursing Rehab Center, AKA, Caber Enterprises, Inc., sustained injury arising out of and during the course of employment to the bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral shoulders, and upper extremities.

  The Board found that the applicant sustained injury arising out of employment but deferred the issue of the date of injury because the applicant did not have knowledge that her disability was work-related as of the initially claimed date.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ8963138 · 2026-07-28 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7[39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) “Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories. Medical opinion also fails to support the Board’s findings if it is based on surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess.” (Hegglin v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]. A. It appears the last treating report reviewed by AME Lundeen was the report from Boyd Johnson, D.O., dated October 6, 2022. (EXH BB, p. 13.) The case came to trial on March 17, 2026, more than three years after this last treating report. In the FFA&O, the WCJ ordered the parties to develop the record “on the issues of Permanent and Stationary, Permanent Disability, and Apportionment and body parts.” (FFA&O, p. 3, emphasis added.) The WCJ specifically noted the AME’s last “medical report is stale” and further “that the applicant’s condition has materially changed with regards to her activities of daily living and pain.” (Opinion on Decision, pp.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's findings of no injury to the right knee and left hand/wrist were not supported by substantial evidence due to stale medical reports and inaccurate medical history, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ17103616 · 2026-05-22 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 10, 2026. Therein the WCJ found that, while employed as a battery tech and roadside assistant on June 13, 2022, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, and left shoulder. The WCJ further found that "[t]he record needs further development, with a neurologist, as to whether Applicant sustained a compensable injury to the head (characterized as headaches) because of the June 13, 2022, incident." Based on these findings, the WCJ issued the following order:

  The WCJ found the chiropractic QME's opinion on headaches was speculative and not substantial medical evidence, justifying ordering a neurological QME panel; the Appeals Board amended the order to remove language broadly disqualifying chiropractic opinions but affirmed the need for a neurological QME.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13081167 · 2026-01-16 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7In contrast to the issue of whether multiple periods of employment may have caused decedent's injury, as implicated by sections 3212.1 and 5500.5 discussed above, if there is one cumulative injury, as was stipulated here, then there can be only one section 5412 date of injury. In his November 2, 2018 report, Dr. Wiseman confirmed that December 5, 2017 was the first date upon which a diagnosis of industrially related cancer was reported and known to decedent. (Exhibit B, p. 31.) Accordingly, the WCJ found December 5, 2017 to be the date of injury for section 5412 purposes. Defendant provides no relevant evidence to contradict this finding, and we find no basis upon which to disturb it. As such, we agree with the WCJ's finding of December 5, 2017 as the date of injury under section 5412.

  The WCJ's finding of December 5, 2017 as the injury date under section 5412 is supported by Dr. Wiseman's medical opinion and the parties' stipulations; liability under section 5500.5 is deferred and related to the period of employment exposure.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10759829 · 2025-12-17 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.19In this case, although the reports and deposition testimony of Dr. Previte attribute applicant's low back injury to a specific industrial injury that occurred in 1997, these opinions are unsupported by any detailed or cogent explanation of how or why the presumptive cumulative effect of wearing a duty belt for more than five years did not contribute in any way whatsoever to applicant's low back condition. Furthermore, Dr. Previte seems to hold the opinion that wearing a duty belt cannot constitute a medically probable cause of cumulative lumbar injury. This position is both unsubstantiated by explanation and based on a legally incorrect theory. As a matter of law, injury to the lumbar spine is presumed under prescribed circumstances. Any medical-legal evaluator who presumes the opposite to be true, without a detailed and cogent rebuttal, fails to meet the standards of substantial medical evidence set forth in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2007) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).

  Dr. Previte's opinion that the duty belt did not cause cumulative injury to the lumbar spine is not substantial medical evidence because it lacks detailed reasoning and is based on a legally incorrect theory, so the presumption of cumulative trauma causing the lumbar disability stands unrebutted.

  Official decision · page 19 →
• ADJ14609243 · 2025-10-13 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3The only disputed issues deal with the impairment caused by the ulcerative colitis, and the apportionment of industrial versus non-industrial disability, Both issues were arguably addressed by QME Dr. Gwartz in his report admitted into evidence. It was the conclusion of Dr. Gwartz that the impairment should be apportioned 30% to industrial factors and 70% to non-industrial factors.

  The WCJ found Dr. Gwartz's opinion self-contradictory and insufficient as substantial medical evidence to support apportionment. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the record and merits, deferring final decision.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10798775 · 2025-07-21 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.17In this case, we reject as unsupported by the evidence the stipulation of the parties that applicant sustained a specific injury of August 27, 2015 to the upper extremities, and a specific injury of March 5, 2017 to the lower extremities. Based on the lack of substantial medical evidence establishing that applicant sustained any specific injury and based on indications by both physicians that he sustained a cumulative injury to the upper extremities and may have sustained a cumulative injury to the lower extremities as well, we rescind the April 7, 2025 Joint Findings and Awards in their entirety for further hearing and development of the record consistent with this decision.

  The Appeals Board found the medical evidence insufficient to support the specific injury findings and apportionment opinions, leading to rescission of the F&A and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 17 →
• ADJ3317169 · 2025-05-21 · Fresno District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that due to the combined effect of multiple injuries, applicant was not amenable to participate in vocational rehabilitation and was unable to compete in the open labor market and issued a joint and several award of 100% permanent total disability without apportionment.

  Applicant proved permanent total disability through medical and vocational evidence showing complete loss of earning capacity due to industrial injuries; defendant failed to prove apportionment of disability to non-industrial causes.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12491336 · 2025-05-15 · Fresno District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7With respect to the contention of the Petition that the evidence did not justify the finding and award of retroactive temporary disability for the period from November 15, 2019 to October 10, 2023, we conclude that the October 10, 2023 report of orthopedic QME Charles M. Sonu, M.D., admitted as Joint EE, justifies the WCJ's finding that applicant did not reach maximal medical improvement (MMI) until October 10, 2023, notwithstanding the parties' stipulation to an earlier MMI date based on the opinions of Dr. Vanderlinden, the QME in general surgery. Stipulations are not binding upon the Appeals Board or WCJ, and the Appeals Board or WCJ may reject a stipulation and base the decision on evidence presented at the hearing. (Lab. Code § 5702; Turner Gas Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kinney) (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 286, 290 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 253]; State of California v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Butterworth) (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 673, 677 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 166]; Hanna, 2 CA Law of Employee Injuries & Workers' Comp § 26.06[2] (2025).) Accordingly, the WCJ was not bound by the parties' stipulated MMI date and was free to rely upon substantial medical evidence to the contrary in a different medical specialty, justifying a later MMI date.

  The orthopedic QME's report justified the finding that applicant did not reach MMI until October 10, 2023, supporting retroactive temporary disability benefits.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ18581542 · 2024-09-16 · Fresno District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal, or in the alternative, reconsideration, of the June 19, 2024 Order wherein the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) denied applicant's Petition for Change of Venue.

  Applicant demonstrated good cause for change of venue due to full-time residence in Los Angeles County, hardship of travel to Fresno, and location of attorney and treaters; denial of removal would cause substantial prejudice or irreparable harm; reconsideration was inadequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14464272 · 2024-05-24 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3Here, defendant challenges the reliance on Dr. Scheinberg's reports and urges that the reports of Jayprakash Shah, M.D. are more reliable. Under Hamilton, supra, the WCJ must provide his reasons for why he relied on Dr. Scheinberg's reports instead of Dr. Shah's reports. It is only then that we can meaningfully evaluate the reasons or grounds upon which the court's decisions were made. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22 [2010 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 74].) Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, amend the Findings, Orders and Award to defer the issue of permanent disability, and return the matter for further development of the record.

  The Board found that the WCJ did not provide sufficient reasons for relying on Dr. Scheinberg's reports over Dr. Shah's reports, which is required under Hamilton and related case law for substantial evidence. Therefore, the issue of permanent disability and apportionment was deferred for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ15870256 · 2023-05-23 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal from the August 24, 2022 Amended Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a respiratory therapist on October 24, 2021, sustained industrial injury to left knee. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant's QME panel was invalid, and that the parties were required to start the panel QME selection process anew.

  The parties had completed the procedural steps to obtain a valid QME panel while applicant was unrepresented, and applicant's request for a new panel after retaining counsel was proper under Labor Code section 4062.2 and Romero precedent. The WCJ's invalidation of the panel was reversed as it would cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

  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.

• DUNCAN CASSIO LUCCHESI BINKLEY & VAN DOREN
• DUNCAN, CASSIO, LUCCHESI, BINKLEY & VAN DOREN
• LAW OFFICES OF DUNCAN, CASSIO, LUCCHESI, BINKLEY & VAN DOREN
• Duncan Cassio Lucchesi Binkley & Van Doren
• DUNCAN CASSIO
• LAW OFFICES OF DUNCAN, CASSIO, LUCCHESI, BINKLEY & VAN DOREN, P.C.
• DUNCAN, CASSIO, LUCCHESI, BINKLEY, & VAN DOREN
• Duncan, Cassio, Lucchesi, Binkley & Van Doren

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.