California WCABLaw firm
Hefley Law
Hefley Law is named in 14 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Liens (3), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (3) and AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Long Beach.
- Decisions
- 14
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 6
- District offices
- 5
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 14 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.
- ADJ11008738 · 2025-10-20 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5the MOH from the April 28, 2025 lien conference until July 11, 2025, a review of the record does not show defendant's conduct rose to the level of bad faith that is needed to impose sanctions under section 5813. Specifically, defendant contends "on May 5, 2025, the day the Minutes were received via email, the inbox experienced a high volume of message over 250 emails. The relevant
Defendant's failure to timely serve and file proof of service was found to be inadvertent and not in bad faith, thus sanctions were not warranted.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ10983565 · 2025-08-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) insurance carrier for Mecum Auctions (Mecum) and defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company (Church) carrier for Victory Outreach Chino (Victory) each seek reconsideration of the April 29, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that on the date of injury Victory was the general employer, Mission Acts Ministries (Mission) was the employer and personnel staffing agency, and Mecum was the special employer of applicant.
The WCAB found that applicant was an employee, not a volunteer, because he performed services in exchange for benefits such as residence and participation in a rehabilitation program, and Mecum had control over the work performed, establishing a special employer relationship.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10428400 · 2024-07-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the Petition and the Report. We have also reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant the Petition for
Defendant failed to prove existence of a valid PPO contract to reduce lien reimbursement; WCJ properly allowed statutory increase and interest under Labor Code 4603.2(b)(2).
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12250535 · 2023-11-27 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5On September 6, 2023, this WCJ issued a Findings of Fact and Order and Opinion on Decision, wherein it was found, in pertinent part, that: (1) Dr. Halbridge has standing to Pursue the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute; (2) The Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute is not the correct remedy in this matter; and (3) Dr. Halbridge was required to request IBR before pursuing the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute. The Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute was denied via Order and it was noted that the remaining issues are moot.
The WCJ and WCAB panel found that the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute was not the correct remedy because the petitioner failed to request Independent Bill Review (IBR) after a second bill review, which is mandatory under Labor Code 4603.3 and 4603.6. The defective Explanation of Review (EOR) did not excuse the petitioner from the IBR process. The petition was denied accordingly.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ11404325 · 2022-08-03 · Oxnard District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Additionally, as the party with the affirmative of the issue, it is defendant that carries the burden of proof to establish the existence and applicability of the alleged PPO contract to this dispute. (Lab. Code § 5705, "[t]he burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue.") Here, defendant relied on an alleged PPO contract to reduce the amounts reimbursed to lien claimant. (Ex. A, Review Analysis, dated September 29, 2018; Ex. B, Explanation of Bill Review, dated November 9, 2018.) It was thus defendant's affirmative burden to establish the existence of a valid and enforceable PPO contract governing its reimbursement arrangement with lien claimant.
Defendant failed to prove existence of PPO contract; lien claimant entitled to stipulated amount less credit for sums paid; penalties and interest adjusted accordingly.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ11053430 · 2022-04-19 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Whether Applicant needs lumbar spine surgery on an industrial basis per PQME Gumbs or whether PQME Gumbs defers the need for surgery to another individual.
The orthopedic QME, Dr. Gumbs, recommended surgery but deferred the specific type of surgery to the surgeon, making the record incomplete for adjudication. The Appeals Board found the record insufficient and remanded for further development, including obtaining a spinal surgeon's report.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ11053430 · 2021-03-15 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7The Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision were served on December 28, 2020. In summary, the undersigned found that, pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, dated February 3, 2020, and the agreement of the parties reflected in the MOH from May 28, 2020, the determination of whether the applicant should be authorized to proceed with lumbar spine surgery is deferred to PQME Gumbs in conjunction with the psychiatric clearance by Eugene Richard Dorsey, M.D., rather than the UR/IMR process. An Award of further medical care related to the potential lumbar spine surgery in line with the opinions of PQME Gumbs and Dr. Dorsey was issued. It is from this Findings and Award that Defendant petitions for Reconsideration.
The parties stipulated to defer the determination of lumbar spine surgery authorization to the PQME and psychiatric clearance by Dr. Dorsey, waiving the UR/IMR process, which the WCJ and WCAB panel upheld despite defendant's later objections.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ11373417 · 2026-01-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ18177123 · 2025-09-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision is issued.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ16364562 · 2025-07-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).)
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10066454 · 2024-06-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2We received an Answer from defendant Cypress Insurance Company. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration. We have considered the allegations of the Petition and the contents of the Report of the WCJ with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the Petition is untimely and must be dismissed. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration.
The petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision and was therefore untimely, depriving the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider it.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ17502495 · 2023-11-09 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
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.
- HEFLEY LAW, APC
- HEFLEY LAW
- Hefley Law
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.