Haworth, Bradshaw, Stallknecht & Barber, INC.

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Oakland 5
• Salinas 3
• Bakersfield 2
• Redding 2
• Fresno 1
• Lodi 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Francisco 1
• San Jose 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.

• 9 for the applicant
• 6 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 16 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.

• ADJ19945323 · 2026-08-31 · Lodi District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Order Regarding Remote Trial issued on June 3, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which denied the parties’ request for a remote trial on the issue of sanctions, penalties, and attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 5710. Applicant contends that good cause exists to permit remote proceedings. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ abused discretion in denying the request for remote trial without sufficient reasons, violating due process rights and the principles of liberal pleading and amendment to conform to proof. The Board granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order, allowing the remote trial.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10111444 · 2026-07-24 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the “Findings and Award” (F&A) issued on September 2, 2025, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was not entitled to an award of temporary disability because he was capable of working modified duty, but did not work. Applicant contends that defendant failed to offer modified work within applicant’s work restrictions. We have received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration or grant reconsideration to amend the findings of fact to find that defendant offered appropriate work to applicant. Thereafter, we issued an order granting the petition, pending further review of the entire record. Subsequently, the parties successfully participated in a voluntary mediation at the Appeals Board. On July 16, 2026, the parties advised that a proposed settlement by stipulation and order had been reached, and requested return of the matter to the trial level for review of the proposed settlement.

  The WCJ originally found the applicant was not entitled to temporary disability because he was capable of working modified duty but did not work; the applicant contended the defendant failed to offer modified work within restrictions; the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for settlement consideration without ruling on the merits.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10111444 · 2026-02-02 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on September 2, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was not entitled to an award of temporary disability because he was capable of working modified duty, but did not work.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the evidence may not sufficiently support the WCJ's finding that modified work was offered; the case merits further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13262420 · 2025-10-20 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

  Determinative passage · p.4II. We begin with the issue of employment. The WCJ found that on February 10, 2020, applicant was employed by Kenneth C. Ray and that applicant was not employed by BBSI. No party has challenged those findings. Accordingly, those findings will not be disturbed. If the liable party is uninsured, UEBTF may potentially provide workers' compensation benefits to applicant. When this matter was already set for trial, applicant petitioned for the joinder of UEBTF in connection to alleged employer Compass and for the joinder of Compass. Orders joining Compass and UEBTF issued on December 21, 2022. Applicant requested the dismissal of Compass on March 15, 2023. There is no evidence that Compass or UEBTF have participated in the litigation. However, the WCJ awarded benefits to applicant against both Compass and Kenneth C. Ray, even though Compass and UEBTF did not participate or attend the proceedings. Additionally, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed by Kenneth C.

  The WCJ found, and no party challenged, that applicant was employed by Kenneth C. Ray and not by BBSI on February 10, 2020.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ15306840 · 2025-05-27 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision" (F&O) issued on February 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that the facts and medical evidence were irreconcilable in this case and found no substantial medical evidence proving industrial injury. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing on his claim.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in relying on a QME's summary of subrosa video not in evidence to discredit applicant's credibility and that the medical evidence supported industrial injury. The matter was returned for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2024623 · 2022-05-24 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of May 21, 2019, the Presiding Workers' Compensation Judge ("PWCJ") found that applicant, while employed as a human resources/payroll employee by Cardinale Automotive Group on July 11, 1995 (ADJ4652674, insurer Republic Indemnity Company) and on January 15, 1996 (ADJ2024623, insurer Allianz Insurance Company), sustained industrial injury to her right knee per the Amended Findings and Award of February 2, 2005, and that in ADJ2024623, applicant sustained industrial injury to her left knee, psyche and complex regional pain syndrome ("CRPS"), causing permanent disability of 100% under the 1978 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities. In his Opinion on Decision, the PWCJ also found that "apportionment [of permanent disability] is 100% to the injury of January 5, 1996 in ADJ2024623MF based upon the opinion of Dr. Brose [pain specialist]," and that "[a]lthough the issue of [Labor Code section 3208.3(d)] is largely moot for permanent disability purposes...applicant did sustain a compensable psychiatric injury based [on her] credible testimony that she worked for over six months."1

  The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the diagnosis of CRPS and causation by the 01/05/96 injury, but rescinded and deferred the permanent disability finding in ADJ2024623 for further development due to insufficient evidence on permanent disability rating and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13518613 · 2022-01-25 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, issued by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on November 23, 2021, wherein we rescinded the April 13, 2021 Findings and Order and substituted a new Findings and Order, finding that on January 30, 2020, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her low back including lumbar radiculopathy to her left leg, and deferring all other issues regarding the injury.

  The Board found substantial evidence that the applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her low back including lumbar radiculopathy to her left leg, rejecting the defense argument that the injury was not work-related based on the QME report and pre-existing condition.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10652804 · 2022-01-13 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4[T]here was no substantial medical evidence offered to establish applicant sustained injury to his psyche, nervous system (anxiety), sexual dysfunction or sleep disorder arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant on 05/08/2015. (Report, p. 12.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial medical evidence supporting injury to psyche, nervous system, sexual dysfunction, sleep disorder, low back, left knee, or left ankle, and no new and further disability; Dr. Huffer's well-reasoned report was substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13518613 · 2021-11-23 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and substitute a new Findings and Order, finding that on January 30, 2020, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her low back including lumbar radiculopathy to her left leg, and deferring all other issues regarding the January 30, 2020 injury; and we will return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings as appropriate.

  Substantial evidence from applicant's and witness testimony and medical reports supports injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine including lumbar radiculopathy to left leg; Dr. Carpenter's contrary opinion was not substantial evidence due to lack of explanation and failure to address aggravation of pre-existing condition; treating physicians' opinions credited.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14425732 · 2021-06-28 · Fresno District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the Notice of Application, indicating venue in Fresno, issued on March 26, 2021. In its verified petition, defendant asserts that it received the Notice of Application on March 26, 2021. (Petition for Reconsideration, at p. 1:28.) Thereafter, defendant timely objected within 30 days on April 14, 2021. Accordingly, pursuant to section 5501.5(c), we will order venue transferred to Salinas.

  Defendant timely objected to venue in Fresno within 30 days of receiving the Notice of Application, so venue must be assigned according to Labor Code section 5501.5(a)(1) or (a)(2).

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11558403 · 2021-02-01 · Salinas District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact of November 9, 2020, wherein it was found that while employed as a seasonal tractor driver on May 14, 2017, applicant sustained industrial injury to his neck. In finding an industrial injury, the WCJ found that applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, the WCJ found a specific injury despite the fact that applicant alleged a cumulative injury in his Application for Adjudication of Claim.

  The WCJ found the applicant sustained a specific injury on May 14, 2017, and that the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because the statute was tolled until the applicant received a DWC-1 form on August 1, 2018, and the application was filed within one year thereafter.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10805554 · 2025-09-12 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the WCJ with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The petition was denied because the Appeals Board acted timely on the petition and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal. The NIT issue remains with the WCJ.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 13.

• HAWORTH BRADSHAW
• HAWORTH, BRADSHAW, STALLKNECHT & BARBER, INC.
• HAWORTH, BRADSHAW, STALLKNECHT & BARBER
• HAWORTH, BRADSHAW, STALLKNECHT AND BARBER, INC.
• Haworth, Bradshaw, Stallknecht & Barber, Inc.
• Haworth Bradshaw Stallknecht and Barber, Inc.
• HAWORTH, BRADSHAW, SATLLKNECHT AND BARBER
• Haworth, Bradshaw, Stallknecht & Barber
• HAWORTH BRADSHAW KARASOFF & ASSOCIATES
• HAWORTH BRADSHAW STALLKNECHT & BARBER
• HAWORTH BRADSHAW STALLKNECT & BARBER
• LAW OFFICES OF HAWORTH BRADSHAW

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.