California WCABLaw firm
Law Offices of Joan Sheppard
Law Offices of Joan Sheppard is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Substantial evidence / credibility (1) and Permanent total disability (1). They were heard most often at Anaheim, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Bentley & More (1).
- Decisions
- 10
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 8
Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 of 10 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
4 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
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 10 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.
- ADJ12142181 · 2026-03-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2On December 10, 2021, the WCJ issued her decision, determining in relevant part that applicant did not sustain his evidentiary burden of establishing injury AOE/COE occurring on February 20, 2019. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) In the accompanying Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that medical records in evidence from applicant's treating physician Dr. Fisher indicated an initial visit date of February 14, 2019, and that applicant testified that he had seen Dr. Fisher on the day following the specific injury. The WCJ observed that this date was inconsistent with the date provided by applicant to subsequent evaluating physicians. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 3-4.) The WCJ observed that payroll records demonstrate that applicant was not working on February 13, 2019, which would have been the day preceding his initial visit with Dr. Fisher. Because the history applicant provided to his evaluating physicians regarding the date of injury was not consistent with his trial testimony, the WCJ concluded that applicant had not met his
The Board found the WCJ's credibility determinations supported by substantial evidence, including inconsistencies in applicant's testimony and medical and payroll records, and thus affirmed the denial of injury AOE/COE.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ10841453 · 2024-05-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision and substitute it with a new Findings and Order, that strikes Findings of Fact number two (2)1 and admits applicant's Exhibit 1 (Medical report from Gayle Windman, Ph.D., dated March 28, 2022), which the WCJ discusses in the Report. We will otherwise restate the WCJ's findings and order.
The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial medical evidence supporting the claim that dizziness and psychological symptoms arose out of and in the course of employment, relying on AME opinions and rejecting the applicant's expert who did not review medical records.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ13220426 · 2023-03-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4III. DISCUSSION The appeal filed by applicant essentially questions the substantially of the medical findings of Dr. Peter Alexakis, the PQME. These defense Exhibits, A, B and C, were found by the court to be accurate, well-reasoned and clear. They were held to be substantial medical evidence and better evidence that the reports of the treating physicians. Applicant argues that the PQME's failure to find injury to the applicant's neck and back are incorrect and speculative. They argue that the reports do not properly review all of the applicant's medical records and that the records, specifically the Facey medical records, are not offered into evidence. Applicant asserts that the PQME in the report dated 8/15/2020 indicates that he reviewed a Rehab 90 job analysis stating that applicant lifted up to 10 lbs. They refute this by asserting that the applicant testified to lifting objects up to 50 lbs. They argue that the PQME may have reviewed an unauthenticated job analysis. None of the arguments made by applicant on appeal were raised at the time of trial.
The court found the PQME reports to be accurate, well-reasoned, and substantial medical evidence, giving them greater weight than treating physicians' reports. The applicant's arguments against the PQME's findings were not raised at trial and were speculative or waived.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ9900622 · 2022-07-08 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The parties submitted a total of 39 exhibits which included multiple medical reports, 4 Cross- examination transcripts, 10 vocational expert reports, and medical reporting from 6 different specialties. The Court reviewed each page of the evidence and outlined the multiple findings from the various doctors in describing the basis for the finding that the applicant was entitled to a finding of 100% total permanent disability.
The WCJ found applicant 100% totally permanently disabled based on the persuasive vocational expert opinion that applicant was not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and incapable of employment, and the combined medical evidence rated at 98% disability. The WCAB adopted this reasoning and found no error.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ11438289 · 2021-02-17 · Salinas District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Applicant sustained injury AOE/COE. Applicant did not materially deviate from his work errand at the time of his motor vehicle accident.
Applicant did not materially deviate from his work errand at the time of the motor vehicle accident and the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, supported by credible testimony and legal precedent.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ10340498 · 2023-11-08 · Anaheim 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.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ order or that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10920365 · 2023-02-13 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on December 13, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10671022 · 2022-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Insurance Company of the West seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 20, 2020, wherein the WCJ approved a settlement agreement between applicant and California Insurance Company.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the compromise and release agreement was a valid contract between applicant and California Insurance Company, and Insurance Company of the West was not a party to it and thus had no standing to challenge its terms.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ7976799 · 2022-10-14 · Riverside 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 found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14549823 · 2022-04-27 · Oxnard 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, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
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.
- Law Offices of Joan Sheppard
- LAW OFFICES OF JOAN SHEPPARD
- THE LAW OFFICES OF JOAN SHEPPARD
- LAW OFFICE OF JOAN SHEPPARD
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.