California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Lucy Bishop

Law Offices of Lucy Bishop is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2), Penalties under Labor Code §5814 (2) and Permanent total disability (2). They were heard most often at Riverside, then San Bernardino. The firm it meets most often is D'Andre Law (2).

Decisions: 13
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 9 of 9 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.

Who they face

2 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Riverside 7
San Bernardino 5
Santa Barbara 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.

7 for the defense
4 for the applicant
3 returned for more record

Counted over 13 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.

ADJ7376924 · 2026-05-28 · Riverside District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, it is our decision after remand to affirm the 2024 Decision except that we amend the decision to amend Finding no. 9 and the Award to defer calculation of applicant's permanent total disability rate. It is our further decision after remand to return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision and Labor Code section 5313.
The WCAB found error in the prior calculation of the permanent total disability rate, deferred the calculation, and remanded for further proceedings to properly consider evidence and apply the correct legal standards.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ7376924 · 2024-08-16 · Riverside District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.44453(c), subsection (c)(1) is the most reasonable and fair method of calculation available given applicant's full-time employment and regular and consistent earnings at the time of injury. Subsection (c)(2) applies where the employee works for two or more employers at or about the time of the injury; subsection (c)(3) applies to irregular rates such as piecemeal work or commission basis; and subsection (c)(4), upon which applicant relies, applies "[w]here the employment is for less than 30 hours per week, or where for any reason the foregoing methods of arriving at the average weekly earnings cannot reasonably and fairly be applied..." (Lab. Code, § 4453(c).) As noted above, applicant did not work less than 30 hours per week but rather worked forty hours per week. Moreover, we are not persuaded that calculation of the average weekly earnings under subsection (c)(1) is not reasonably and fairly applied.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ7376924 · 2023-02-06 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6The Petitioner argued in Petition for Reconsideration that permanent disability rates should be calculated using the rate in effect on the date of the injury. They are separate benefits from temporary disability. P4ermanent disability does not fluctuate as temporary disability rates due in relation to when they are paid.
The petition for reconsideration was granted to correct the permanent total disability rate to be based on the rate in effect at the date of injury, not the temporary disability rate paid later, consistent with Labor Code provisions.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ12795671 · 2022-10-25 · San Bernardino District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7The requested medical treatment at issue in this case is Primary Treating Physician Dr. Saeed Nick's request for a Temperpedic adjustable king size bed. The parties stipulated that Defendant did not issue a timely Utilization Review determination for this requested treatment. Thus, the undersigned WCALJ was tasked with determining the medical reasonableness and necessity of the requested bed. The undersigned now reiterates his finding that Dr. Nick's reporting is not substantial medical evidence as it relates to the issue of medical reasonable and necessity of the requested bed. Therefore, Applicant has failed to meet his burden of proof.
The WCJ found that Dr. Nick's reports did not constitute substantial medical evidence to prove the medical necessity of the requested bed, and the Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof. The WCAB panel adopted and affirmed this finding.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ6428257 · 2022-01-06 · San Bernardino District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4C. ATTORNEY'S FEES FROM SECTION 4658(D)(2) INCREASE AND LIFE PENSION
The WCAB concluded that applicant's attorney is entitled to attorney's fees on the life pension award and returned the matter to the trial level to determine reasonable attorney's fees from the life pension award.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12994937 · 2021-12-27 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1As relevant here, Administrative Director Rule 9792.6.1(t)(3) provides that the request for authorization "must be signed by the treating physician and may be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to, if designated, the address, fax number, or e-mail address designated by the claims administrator for this purpose...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.6.1(t)(3), emphasis added.) We agree with the WCJ that applicant did not fax the request for authorization (RFA) to the fax number designated by defendant for that purpose. Consequently, we also agree that defendant's utilization review (UR) denial was not untimely.
Applicant did not fax the request for authorization to the designated fax number for utilization review, so the denial was not untimely.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9221135 · 2021-03-01 · San Bernardino District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4On 12/4/2020 the undersigned issued a Findings and Award whereby it was found that defendant's actions did not constitute bad-faith actions or tactics that were frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, therefore no sanctions pursuant to Labor Code 5813 are warranted or awarded.
The WCJ found defendant's actions were taken in good faith to test a novel legal issue and did not constitute bad faith or frivolous tactics, which the WCAB panel adopted and upheld on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11276804 · 2021-02-23 · San Bernardino District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations in the Petition for Reconsideration (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 grant reconsideration, and we will affirm the F&A except that we will amend the F&A to find that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period beginning October 30, 2017, to and including November 8, 2019, and that applicant has received temporary disability indemnity during the period from October 30, 2017, through May 11, 2019, (Finding of
Applicant was temporarily totally disabled due to the September 28, 2017 injury until November 8, 2019, and is entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits beyond the previously awarded period, up to 104 weeks from October 30, 2017.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ2339305 · 2024-03-13 · Santa Barbara 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 that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10393295 · 2024-01-23 · Riverside District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Orders (F&O) issued on November 3, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) the case in chief was resolved by a findings and award issued on June 29, 2022; (2) neither party sought reconsideration of the June 29, 2022 findings and award; and (3) applicant's attorney did not prove that the DEU should be ordered to calculate a commutation of the attorney's fee arising from applicant's life pension by factoring an increase in the state average weekly wage (SAWW) at a rate higher than 3 percent.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the DEU's use of a 3% SAWW rate for commutation calculation was reasonable and in the best interest of the applicant, rejecting the request for a higher rate of 4.14%.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11568947 · 2022-04-25 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The WCAB panel found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and held reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11089233 · 2022-02-22 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.
The Appeals Board rescinded the prior WCJ decision and returned the case to the trial level to allow the WCJ to review the proposed settlement while the matter was pending on reconsideration, as the District Office is precluded from acting on the case during reconsideration.
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 LUCY M. BISHOP
THE LAW OFFICES OF LUCY M. BISHOP
Law Offices of Lucy Bishop
LAW OFFICE OF LUCY M. BISHOP

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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Law Offices of Lucy Bishop

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

7 for the defense

4 for the applicant

3 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ7376924 · 2026-05-28 · Riverside District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, it is our decision after remand to affirm the 2024 Decision except that we amend the decision to amend Finding no. 9 and the Award to defer calculation of applicant's permanent total disability rate. It is our further decision after remand to return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision and Labor Code section 5313.

The WCAB found error in the prior calculation of the permanent total disability rate, deferred the calculation, and remanded for further proceedings to properly consider evidence and apply the correct legal standards.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ7376924 · 2024-08-16 · Riverside District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.44453(c), subsection (c)(1) is the most reasonable and fair method of calculation available given applicant's full-time employment and regular and consistent earnings at the time of injury. Subsection (c)(2) applies where the employee works for two or more employers at or about the time of the injury; subsection (c)(3) applies to irregular rates such as piecemeal work or commission basis; and subsection (c)(4), upon which applicant relies, applies "[w]here the employment is for less than 30 hours per week, or where for any reason the foregoing methods of arriving at the average weekly earnings cannot reasonably and fairly be applied..." (Lab. Code, § 4453(c).) As noted above, applicant did not work less than 30 hours per week but rather worked forty hours per week. Moreover, we are not persuaded that calculation of the average weekly earnings under subsection (c)(1) is not reasonably and fairly applied.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ7376924 · 2023-02-06 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6The Petitioner argued in Petition for Reconsideration that permanent disability rates should be calculated using the rate in effect on the date of the injury. They are separate benefits from temporary disability. P4ermanent disability does not fluctuate as temporary disability rates due in relation to when they are paid.

The petition for reconsideration was granted to correct the permanent total disability rate to be based on the rate in effect at the date of injury, not the temporary disability rate paid later, consistent with Labor Code provisions.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ12795671 · 2022-10-25 · San Bernardino District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7The requested medical treatment at issue in this case is Primary Treating Physician Dr. Saeed Nick's request for a Temperpedic adjustable king size bed. The parties stipulated that Defendant did not issue a timely Utilization Review determination for this requested treatment. Thus, the undersigned WCALJ was tasked with determining the medical reasonableness and necessity of the requested bed. The undersigned now reiterates his finding that Dr. Nick's reporting is not substantial medical evidence as it relates to the issue of medical reasonable and necessity of the requested bed. Therefore, Applicant has failed to meet his burden of proof.

The WCJ found that Dr. Nick's reports did not constitute substantial medical evidence to prove the medical necessity of the requested bed, and the Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof. The WCAB panel adopted and affirmed this finding.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ6428257 · 2022-01-06 · San Bernardino District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4C. ATTORNEY'S FEES FROM SECTION 4658(D)(2) INCREASE AND LIFE PENSION

The WCAB concluded that applicant's attorney is entitled to attorney's fees on the life pension award and returned the matter to the trial level to determine reasonable attorney's fees from the life pension award.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12994937 · 2021-12-27 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1As relevant here, Administrative Director Rule 9792.6.1(t)(3) provides that the request for authorization "must be signed by the treating physician and may be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to, if designated, the address, fax number, or e-mail address designated by the claims administrator for this purpose...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.6.1(t)(3), emphasis added.) We agree with the WCJ that applicant did not fax the request for authorization (RFA) to the fax number designated by defendant for that purpose. Consequently, we also agree that defendant's utilization review (UR) denial was not untimely.

Applicant did not fax the request for authorization to the designated fax number for utilization review, so the denial was not untimely.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9221135 · 2021-03-01 · San Bernardino District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4On 12/4/2020 the undersigned issued a Findings and Award whereby it was found that defendant's actions did not constitute bad-faith actions or tactics that were frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, therefore no sanctions pursuant to Labor Code 5813 are warranted or awarded.

The WCJ found defendant's actions were taken in good faith to test a novel legal issue and did not constitute bad faith or frivolous tactics, which the WCAB panel adopted and upheld on reconsideration.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11276804 · 2021-02-23 · San Bernardino District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations in the Petition for Reconsideration (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 grant reconsideration, and we will affirm the F&A except that we will amend the F&A to find that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period beginning October 30, 2017, to and including November 8, 2019, and that applicant has received temporary disability indemnity during the period from October 30, 2017, through May 11, 2019, (Finding of

Applicant was temporarily totally disabled due to the September 28, 2017 injury until November 8, 2019, and is entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits beyond the previously awarded period, up to 104 weeks from October 30, 2017.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ2339305 · 2024-03-13 · Santa Barbara 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 that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10393295 · 2024-01-23 · Riverside District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Orders (F&O) issued on November 3, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) the case in chief was resolved by a findings and award issued on June 29, 2022; (2) neither party sought reconsideration of the June 29, 2022 findings and award; and (3) applicant's attorney did not prove that the DEU should be ordered to calculate a commutation of the attorney's fee arising from applicant's life pension by factoring an increase in the state average weekly wage (SAWW) at a rate higher than 3 percent.

The WCJ and WCAB found that the DEU's use of a 3% SAWW rate for commutation calculation was reasonable and in the best interest of the applicant, rejecting the request for a higher rate of 4.14%.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11568947 · 2022-04-25 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

The WCAB panel found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and held reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11089233 · 2022-02-22 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

The Appeals Board rescinded the prior WCJ decision and returned the case to the trial level to allow the WCJ to review the proposed settlement while the matter was pending on reconsideration, as the District Office is precluded from acting on the case during reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →