Law Offices of Thomas F. Martin

What they litigate

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

• Medical treatment / UR / IMR7
• AOE/COE2
• Reopening / new and further disability1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Anaheim 13
• Santa Ana 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.

• 5 for the applicant
• 5 for the defense
• 4 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.

• ADJ15777619 · 2025-10-13 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5This matter was proceeded to trial on the applicant's designation of Boomerang Medical Group as the applicant has elected PTP, see Joint. Exh. X1, and defendant's contention that the group is not within the defendant's MPN and applicant must treat within the MPN.

  Defendant failed to provide evidence of valid MPN notices or medical treatment within the MPN, resulting in an adverse inference of neglect or refusal to treat, allowing applicant to treat outside the MPN.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ285288 · 2025-01-03 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, age 49, while employed on 2/29/2000, and during the period 4/15/1995 to 2/29/2000, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment as a soil technician in California with his general employer being GTG, Inc. dba Leighton & Associates, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was American Motorists Insurance, now identified as California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility, Tristar Risk Management, for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company in liquidation. 2. The applicant did not have dual or special employment with Koll Construction Company on February 29, 2000 nor during the period October 1999 to February 29, 2000.

  The evidence showed Koll did not exercise control over applicant's work, applicant was paid and supervised by GTG, Inc., and Koll's role was limited to scheduling and oversight without direct control, thus no dual or special employment existed.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ8264803 · 2024-07-30 · Anaheim District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (defendant) both seek reconsideration of the May 14, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a heavy equipment operator from April 21, 2010 to April 21, 2011, sustained industrial injury to his neck, right shoulder, back, hernia, respiratory [system], thoracic spine, mid-back and atherosclerotic heart disease. The WCJ determined in relevant part, and with respect to applicant's Petition for New and Further disability, that applicant did not sustain injury to the hands, knees, internal or urological systems, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to award new and further disability to the left shoulder, feet and psyche. The WCJ further determined that development of the record was necessary with respect to the issues of permanent disability and apportionment.

  The Board found that the petition for new and further disability was timely filed and that the WCJ properly ordered development of the record due to incomplete medical reporting and the unavailability of the original AME, Dr. Angerman, to issue final opinions on permanent disability and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17164621 · 2024-06-17 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal in response to the Findings and Order (F&O) issued April 9, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an electrician/plumber on August 9, 2022, sustained industrial injury to his right elbow, neck, right shoulder, right wrist, right hand and fingers. The WCJ found that defendant denied medical care to the applicant, allowing applicant to treat outside defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) at employer expense.

  The record did not sufficiently establish that defendant neglected or refused medical treatment to applicant's non-admitted body parts, requiring further proceedings to determine if treatment outside the MPN is justified.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13514659 · 2024-05-28 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4On March 5, 2024, the WCJ issued his F&O, determining in relevant part that applicant

  The record lacked sufficient evidence to establish that the designated medical group 'Optum' met the statutory requirements under Labor Code section 4600(d)(2)(B). The WCJ found the retroactive predesignation invalid, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and remanded for further evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11059073 · 2023-01-17 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Defendant argues that applicant was brought back into the MPN when she selected Dr. Small as her PTP and thus, she may not now choose a non-MPN physician absent a denial of care. We agree that the evidence does not indicate a denial of care by defendant. Instead, the evidence shows that applicant treated with a non-MPN physician for years and continued to treat with Dr. Spencer after she began treating with Dr. Small. If Dr. Small is a member of defendant's MPN (whether the old or new MPN), there may be a viable argument that applicant voluntarily returned herself to the MPN by selecting Dr. Small as her PTP and she may not now choose a PTP outside the MPN absent a denial of care. However, this conclusion presumes that Dr. Small is actually in the MPN, a fact that applicant has not conceded and is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. (See Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc) [decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record"].) We do not presume Dr. Small is in the MPN based solely on defendant's assertion that he is a member of it.

  The evidence showed applicant treated with a non-MPN physician, Dr. Spencer, for years and continued after selecting Dr. Small as PTP. There was no substantial evidence that Dr. Small was in the MPN or that applicant was treating within the MPN when requesting Dr. Spencer as PTP again. Defendant did not object to the request. Therefore, applicant was entitled to treat with Dr. Spencer outside the MPN.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ2529637 · 2022-05-31 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Otherwise stated, defendant was not required to submit the September 13, 2021 RFA for UR, and the record does not contain substantial evidence that supports the award of future medical treatment in the form of the Functional Restoration Program requested by Dr. Small. Accordingly, we rescind the F&A and substitute a new Findings of Fact, finding that the September 13, 2021 report from Dr. Small does not constitute substantial evidence in support his September 13, 2021 RFA; that Utilization Review of the September 13, 2021 RFA was not required; and that applicant is not entitled to undergo the Functional Restoration Program at defendant's expense.

  The September 13, 2021 report from Dr. Small did not document a change in material facts to support the RFA; therefore, utilization review was not required and the applicant is not entitled to the Functional Restoration Program at defendant's expense.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13514659 · 2022-04-11 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, applicant alleges she was not advised of her rights to predesignate a personal physician. Defendant responds that applicant is not sure what information is contained on the Lutheran High Schools Employee website, or whether the web site provides information regarding applicant's right to pre-designate a treating physician. Defendant thus contends that applicant has not met the burden of establishing a failure to notify her of her right to predesignate a personal physician. However, this contention misapprehends the burden of proof because the defendant has the affirmative of the issue, and thus bears the affirmative burden of establishing that it provided appropriate notice to applicant of her rights to pre-designate. (Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1423, 1434 (Appeals Board en banc), Lab. Code § 5705.) The evidentiary record before us does not affirmatively establish the requisite notice. Moreover, the WCJ determined that applicant's testimony that she was not advised of those rights was credible, and we accord to that determination the great weight to which it is entitled. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)

  The defendant failed to prove proper notice of the right to pre-designate a physician, but the applicant did not establish that the physician agreed to pre-designation or that defendant neglected or refused medical treatment. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to treat outside the MPN at employer expense.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ13073418 · 2021-07-19 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9It is well settled that a defendant is liable for treatment for a nonindustrial condition if it is reasonable and necessary to aid in the treatment of an injured workers' injuries. If there is a dispute regarding whether applicant's diabetic condition was aggravated or accelerated by the industrial injury then the treating physician would be allowed at defendant's expense to refer the applicant to a secondary treating physician in internal medicine for a medical-legal evaluation on the issue of causation of that body part.

  The court found substantial evidence supporting the need for an internal medicine consultation to evaluate diabetes causation and treatment related to the industrial injury and denied reconsideration on this issue.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ12915738 · 2021-04-26 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision were based upon a review of the entire record which included that applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony along with the medical reporting.... The Applicant's unrebutted testimony was that he was not aware of what a continuous trauma was until he saw his attorney.... The Applicant also credibly testified that while he did have prior specific injuries including injury to his back, that he never fully recovered from his injuries and that his ongoing work duties aggravated his back and right wrist. His testimony regarding his ongoing heavy work duties and repetitive hand use was credible and not rebutted. (Report, pp. 2 § 3.)

  The WCJ's findings were based on applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony and the substantial medical evidence from treating physician Dr. Offenberger, whose opinions were found to be substantial evidence despite conflicting QME reports. The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no reason to disturb the findings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16267092 · 2026-02-23 · Anaheim District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Joint Findings of Fact" (F&A) issued on November 20, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was not an employee of defendant Pacific Attorney Group (PAG), but an independent contractor.

  The WCJ found applicant was an independent contractor, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the employment status issue.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ4430885 · 2025-07-15 · Santa Ana 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  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.

• THOMAS F. MARTIN, PLC
• LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS F. MARTIN
• Law Offices of Thomas F. Martin
• LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS MARTIN
• LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS F. MARTIN
• LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS MARTIN
• THOMAS F. MARTIN, ESQ.

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.