Law Offices of Robert E. Wood

What they litigate

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

• Apportionment2
• Permanent disability rating2
• Permanent total disability2
• Psyche AOE/COE1
• Jurisdiction / venue1

Where they appear

• Oakland 9

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.

• 5 for the defense
• 2 for the applicant

Counted over 7 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.

• ADJ21458754 · 2026-03-03 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6With these principles in mind, we observe that the process by which a party may seek the issuance of a panel of QMEs is addressed in Rule 30 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 30). Rule 30 requires that represented parties submit a request for a panel of QMEs electronically to the DWC Medical Unit, and that they identify the following elements:

  The panel request was valid despite an incorrect date of injury because it contained the correct claim number, which is the primary identifier for a QME panel request under Rule 30. The Appeals Board emphasized substance over form and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the date error.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11396713 · 2024-08-16 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 20, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on March 13, 2016 as a science specialist by defendant, University of California, Berkeley, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her head, back, neck and in the form of tinnitus, post- concussive syndrome and traumatic brain injury, causing permanent disability of 95%. Applicant was awarded permanent disability less reasonable attorney fees, and future medical care.

  The WCAB found that the applicant's traumatic brain injury caused permanent total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4), rebutting apportionment and supporting a finding of 100% permanent total disability, contrary to the WCJ's 95% partial disability award.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7701836 · 2024-02-20 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 1, 2023 Findings and Award wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that, while employed as an in-home care giver on October 20, 2010, applicant sustained industrial injury to her bilateral upper extremities, including her left shoulder, cervical spine and psyche, causing permanent total disability.1

  The WCJ found permanent total disability based on medical evidence including opinions of Dr. Zwerin and Dr. Wolfson, but the WCAB granted reconsideration due to issues with evidence and application of AMA Guides.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10843970 · 2022-08-06 · Oakland District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant suffered four injuries and a joint Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision issued on 05-19-2022 awarding applicant 100% permanent disability overall for all four cases. Applicant's three orthopedic claims case numbers ADJ8222844, ADJ10843970, and ADJ8827855 were accepted and not contested at trial. The fourth claim, case number ADJ8971975 is a cumulative trauma psychiatric injury ending 12-07-2012, wherein Dr. Allan L.Kipperman was selected as QME when applicant was unrepresented. Dr. Kipperman reported extensively on the facts of applicant's environment of harassment, including bullying and documented disparate treatment while she was working for capital projects department through the date of injury. Based on extensive records review, testing results, evaluation and reevaluation, Dr. Kipperman concluded that applicant sustained psychiatric injury due to the work environment. Dr. Kipperman also felt applicant's psychiatric impairment was the result of both emotional psychological ramifications of the work environment and sequela from the orthopedic injuries as well as compensable consequence conditions that are all intertwined. In the decision, 33 separate situations of harassment are found. Any contention by defendant that any of the incidents is a good faith

  The Board found the psychiatric injury compensable as caused by the combination of orthopedic injuries and hostile work environment, supported by credible testimony and QME reports. The employer's contention that the injury was caused by lawful personnel actions was rejected due to lack of evidence and applicant's credible testimony.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ3359423 · 2021-04-27 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, applicant contends that there is no substantial evidence reflecting that he suffered a cumulative trauma through December 26, 2006 (ADJ7688594) and that Hikida precludes apportionment in this matter because his disability is a result of a failed laminectomy. However, at trial, the admitted facts in ADJ7688594 reflected that applicant had a cumulative injury through December 26, 2006. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), January 26, 2021, p. 3.) Applicant does not acknowledge that stipulation or provide good cause to set aside that stipulation. (County of Sacramento v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd., (Weatherall) (2000) 65 Cal. Comp. Cases 1.) Moreover, applicant himself testified that after his 2002 injury he only performed half of his job duties, that his symptoms worsened as a result of working, and that "the work was wearing him down." (MOH/SOE, pp. 8-9, 12.) Similarly, Dr.

  The AME's apportionment determinations were found to constitute substantial evidence, supported by applicant's testimony, medical history, and the AME's reasoning. Vocational evidence and FCE did not rebut the scheduled rating as they did not properly account for apportionment or were not based on correct history.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10805554 · 2025-09-12 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the WCJ with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The petition was denied because the Appeals Board acted timely on the petition and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal. The NIT issue remains with the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7701836 · 2021-05-24 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Labor Code section 5909 provides that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within 60 days of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) However, "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. The Appeals Board did not act on applicant's petition because it had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Id. at p. 1108.)

  The petition was timely filed but the Appeals Board's failure to act within the statutory time was due to a procedural error, so the time to act was tolled; however, the underlying WCJ decision was not final, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as to reconsideration and removal was denied because no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2853487 · 2021-03-12 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The petition was denied because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm 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.

• LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. WOOD
• LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT WOOD
• Law Offices of Robert E. Wood
• Law Offices Robert E. Wood
• Law Offices of Robert Wood

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.