Law Offices of Dan Epperly & Associates, P.C.

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Apportionment1
• Death benefits1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Fresno 5
• Anaheim 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
• 3 for the applicant

Counted over 6 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.

• 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 →
• ADJ13552676 · 2024-09-04 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  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 →
• ADJ17534784 · 2023-05-30 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on April 19, 2023, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition for removal, leading to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13758768 · 2022-01-31 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a Petition for Removal or in the Alternative Reconsideration regarding the Findings of Fact, Award dated November 12, 2020 and served November 15, 2021.1 We will treat applicant's petition as one seeking reconsideration for the reasons stated below. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based on the recommendation of the WCJ that the record be wiped clean, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the November 15, 2021 decision, and return this matter to the trial level to be set for a mandatory settlement conference. At that time, the parties may attempt to resolve their dispute or the WCJ and the parties may reframe the stipulations and the issues to be tried and the evidence to be presented.

  The petition was treated as one seeking reconsideration because the WCJ's decision adopted the stipulation regarding the threshold issue of employment, making the WCJ's decision a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13646327 · 2022-01-14 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The subpoena(s) were executed and petitioner received the records. The petition to quash was issued post-delivery of the requested records. Therefore the order to quash is moot, and by operation of law, the petition to remove the order to quash is also moot, as doing so would have no effect on the parties' discovery status.

  The order to quash was moot because the subpoenas were executed and records delivered before the petition to quash was filed, so the petition for removal is also moot and must be dismissed.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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 OFFICES OF DAN EPPERLY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
• DAN EPPERLY & ASSOCIATES
• THE LAW OFFICES OF DAN EPPERLY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
• LAW OFFICES OF DAN EPPERLY & ASSOCIATES, PC

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.