Law Office of Joseph Pluta

What they litigate

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

• Temporary disability3
• Permanent disability rating2

Where they appear

• Bakersfield 5

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.

• 2 returned for more record
• 1 for the defense

Counted over 3 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.

• ADJ11201607 · 2024-06-10 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Rulings on Evidence, Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders" (F&A) issued on April 20, 2020, and the subsequent amendment to the F&A in the "Order Amending Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders; Opinion on Decision" (Order) issued on May 5, 2020, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).4 The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained 68% permanent partial disability by adding the impairment to applicant's left and right hip pursuant to East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.). The WCJ further found that apportionment to the hips was not permissible pursuant to Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249 [82 Cal.Comp.Cases 679] because the disability was caused by hip replacement surgery.

  The WCJ's addition of impairments to both hips was not supported by substantial medical evidence because the QME did not adequately analyze the impact on activities of daily living (ADLs) as required to rebut the Combined Values Chart (CVC). The WCJ misapplied Hikida by excluding apportionment despite successful hip surgeries. Defendant failed to prove apportionment due to lack of substantial evidence from the QME.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11201608 · 2024-06-10 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Rulings on Evidence, Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders" (F&A) issued on April 20, 2020, and the subsequent amendment to the F&A in the "Order Amending Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders; Opinion on Decision" (Order) issued on May 5, 2020, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).4 The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained 68% permanent partial disability by adding the impairment to applicant's left and right hip pursuant to East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.). The WCJ further found that apportionment to the hips was not permissible pursuant to Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249 [82 Cal.Comp.Cases 679] because the disability was caused by hip replacement surgery.

  The en banc decision holds that the Combined Values Chart (CVC) may be rebutted and impairments added if the applicant establishes the impact of each impairment on activities of daily living (ADLs) and shows either no overlap or an amplifying overlap of ADLs. The WCJ's prior finding to add impairments was not supported by substantial medical evidence because the QME did not analyze ADLs. The Hikida case was misapplied as the applicant's hip surgeries were successful. Defendant failed to prove apportionment due to lack of substantial evidence from the QME.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10210301 · 2023-10-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.3DISCUSSION Having reviewed our Decision in the context of the Petitions and the Report, it is clear that we found the EDD was entitled to reimbursement from defendant for all benefits it paid to applicant (whether SDI or UI) during the period that applicant was temporarily totally disabled as a result of his injury; and that defendant is entitled to credit for the reimbursement/payments made to the EDD, against the temporary disability indemnity benefits it owes to applicant. Neither the parties nor the lien claimant (EDD) sought reconsideration or review of our Decision. Thus, it became final, and binding, i.e., the amended Findings were not matters to be litigated after our September 24, 2021 Decision became final. (Lab. Code, § 5901 et seq.

  The Board found that the EDD was entitled to reimbursement from defendant for all benefits it paid to applicant during the period of temporary total disability, and that defendant is entitled to credit for those reimbursements against temporary disability indemnity benefits owed to applicant. The only issue left to litigate was the amount of UI benefits paid by EDD.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10210301 · 2021-09-24 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.511 § 18.) He explained that applicant had reached maximum medical improvement/permanent and stationary status in November of 2016, which was approximately one year and two months after his date of injury, i.e. eight months after the March 18, 2016 evaluation. (Joint Exh. 6, p. 18.) Based on our review of the trial record, we agree with the WCJ that Dr. Solberg's reports and deposition testimony constitute substantial evidence and the period of applicant's temporary disability was from October 23, 2015, through November 17, 2016.

  The Board found substantial evidence supporting the applicant's temporary total disability from October 23, 2015 through November 17, 2016, based on QME Dr. Solberg's evaluations and testimony, and ruled that the temporary disability indemnity award must be reduced by the amount of Unemployment Insurance benefits paid, with reimbursement to the EDD.

  Official decision · page 5 →

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.

• Law Office of Joseph Pluta
• LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH PLUTA

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.