Law Offices of Robert T. Bledsoe

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Apportionment2
• Discrimination under Labor Code §132a2
• QME/AME process1

Where they appear

• San Jose 7

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 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.

• ADJ10175755 · 2026-06-02 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4III DISCUSSION Standard to qualify for SIBTF benefits under Labor Code § 4751 To be eligible for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) under Labor Code Section 4751, applicant must demonstrate that (1) he had pre-existing permanent partial disability; (2) the permanent disability from the subsequent industrial injury either (a) produces 35 percent disability or more or (b) 5 percent disability or more to an "opposite and corresponding member, (3) the combined pre-existing and subsequent permanent partial disability is greater than the subsequent permanent partial disability alone; and (4) the combined pre-existing and subsequent permanent partial disability is equal to 70 percent or more.

  Applicant failed to establish pre-existing partial permanent disability to the left shoulder prior to the subsequent industrial injury as required by Labor Code Section 4751 and relevant case law; medical evidence and testimony were insufficient and not corroborated.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9457888 · 2026-03-10 · San Jose District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Cases 16].) While the WCAB may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, this court may only determine whether the evidence is susceptible to the inferences drawn. (Phoenix Indemn. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hamilton) (1948) 31 Cal.2d 856, 859 [193 P.2d 745, 13 Cal. Comp. Cases 118]; Coborn v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1948) 31 Cal.2d 713, 716 [192 P.2d 959, 13 Cal. Comp. Cases 89].) Based on the foregoing, we find that SIBTF has failed to establish that applicant received IDR benefits primarily for or on account of her preexisting disabilities or impairment and SIBTF has not met its burden of proof in this case.

  SIBTF failed to prove that the CalPERS industrial disability retirement benefits were paid primarily for or on account of applicant's preexisting disabilities or impairment, thus no credit is due.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ213915 · 2026-01-22 · San Jose District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Specifically, Dr. Carr reported that applicant's permanent disability of the lumbar spine was 44 percent, with 25 percent of that permanent disability apportioned to the October 27, 2001 specific injury, which rendered a permanent disability rating of 33 percent. (Ex. B, Report of Dr. John Carr, MD, dated February 6, 2007, p. 10.) The WCJ then concluded that applicant failed to meet the 35 percent permanent disability threshold "after apportionment." (Report, p. 7.)

  The Appeals Board found that the applicant's subsequent permanent disability was 44 percent before apportionment, which meets the 35 percent threshold required by section 4751(b) when considered alone without apportionment, following the Court of Appeals' ruling in Bookout v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10305363 · 2024-06-24 · San Jose District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4III. DISCUSSION APPLICANT MEETS THE 35% THRESHOLD OF LC SECTION 4751 Pursuant to section 4751, the permanent disability resulting from the subsequent industrial injury, when considered alone and without regard to or adjustment for the occupation or age of the employee, must be 35% or more. As previously indicated, at the time of Dr. Dixit's 12/12/2015 evaluation, applicant was not permanent and stationary. Notwithstanding this, applicant settled his claim by way of Compromise and Release prior to obtaining a P&S report. In order to establish his eligibility for SIBTF benefits, applicant offered the unrebutted medical reports and opinions of Dr. Chen and Dr. O'Dowd, which the undersigned found to constitute substantial medical evidence of applicant's subsequent industrial injury. Defendant argues Dr. O'Dowd's reporting does not constitute substantial medical evidence because he failed to explain why he deemed applicant to have reached maximal medical improvement despite applicant's lack of psychiatric treatment and counseling, despite a lack of medication, and despite his worsening condition to the point of experiencing suicidal ideation. In her 01/05/2016 report, Dr. Dixit opined applicant's psychiatric injury was not yet permanent and stationary and recommended psychological treatment.

  Applicant met the 35% permanent disability threshold for SIBTF benefits based on substantial medical evidence from Dr. Chen and Dr. O'Dowd, despite defendant's challenges.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13685348 · 2021-05-06 · San Jose District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2WCJ's finding regarding whether chiropractic is the appropriate specialty for the qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)

  The Appeals Board applied the removal standard and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10049929 · 2024-03-26 · San Jose District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In the present case, upon review of the entire records, the undersigned found that Dr. Chen's report was not substantial in that it failed to demonstrate by competent evidence that she had ratable pre-existing partial disability to her alleged varicose vein. Further, applicant's testimony at trial was inconsistent with medical records. What applicant reported to her QMEs were also inconsistent with medical history as reviewed by the doctors.

  Applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence of ratable pre-existing permanent partial disability to the left lower extremity as of the subsequent injury date, and the medical opinions relied on were speculative and unsupported by medical records.

  Official decision · page 6 →

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 ROBERT T. BLEDSOE
• Law Offices of Robert T. Bledsoe
• LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT BLEDSOE

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.