Law Offices of Timothy H. Huber

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Temporary disability2
• Cumulative trauma1

Where they appear

• Sacramento 7
• Stockton 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.

• 4 for the defense
• 3 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

• ADJ15099173 · 2023-01-17 · Sacramento District OfficeCumulative traumaapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant alleges injury to her left upper extremity, left shoulder, left elbow, left wrist, and left thumb during a continuous trauma ending on 8/5/2021; defendant denied the injury. The sole issues presented to the Court was if the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and need for further medical treatment. Defendant did not deny the injury based upon statute of limitations. The parties utilized Dr. Sclafani as the PQME to resolve their issues.

  The court affirmed the WCJ's finding of a cumulative trauma injury ending on 8/5/2021 based on Dr. Sclafani's medical opinion and rejected defendant's argument that the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 should define the cumulative trauma injury date, as that is a separate legal issue related to statute of limitations and compensation rate, not the definition of cumulative trauma.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12582828 · 2023-01-03 · Sacramento District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9III. Defendant contends that it was improper for the WCJ to order development of the record to address permanent disability for the knees. A WCJ has broad authority to issue orders to ensure proper adjudication of each claim, including "any interim, interlocutory and final orders, findings, decisions and awards as may be necessary to the full adjudication of the case." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10330.) This includes the authority to defer issues that the trier of fact determines are not ripe for adjudication. (See e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(a) [the WCJ may bifurcate the issues for trial and try them separately upon a showing of good cause].) Furthermore, as noted above, the employee's occupation is one of the necessary components to rate permanent disability. Since determination of the occupational group number requires further development of the record, applicant's level of permanent disability for all body parts must be deferred. In conclusion, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the FA&O and issue a new decision as outlined herein.

  Permanent disability rating is deferred pending further development of the record on occupational group number, as the occupational group is a necessary component for rating permanent disability.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10287483 · 2022-08-05 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Applicant alleged a presumptive heart injury against City of Sacramento. By stipulation of the parties, applicant qualifies for a presumption of compensability per Labor Code, section 3212.5, and it is City of Sacramento's burden to overcome the presumption.

  The defendant City of Sacramento failed to overcome the presumption of industrial injury because they did not prove the cause of the sarcoidosis was non-industrial, and the cause of sarcoidosis is unknown to science, so the presumption stands.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ8761355 · 2022-05-23 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant was the only witness to testify, and the WCJ took the matter under submission at the end of his testimony. (Id. at p. 9.) On March 8, 2022, the WCJ issued her F&O, finding there was a need to develop the record with regard to applicant's August 2021 fall. (F&O, at p. 1.) Specifically, the WCJ found that AME Bathgate needed to reevaluate applicant to determine whether his fall was a compensable consequence of his prior industrial injury. (Ibid.)

  The WCJ's order to develop the record is interlocutory and not a final order, so reconsideration is dismissed; removal is denied because the WCJ's order was compelled by applicant's credible testimony of further injury despite untimely evidence disclosure.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ7548298 · 2022-02-22 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In accordance with section 5902 and WCAB Rules 10945 and 10972, the Appeals Board may dismiss or deny a petition for reconsideration if it is skeletal (e.g., Cal. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Tardiff) (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 104 (writ den.); Hall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 49 Cal.Comp.Cases 253 (writ den.); Green v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 45 Cal.Comp.Cases 564 (writ den.)); if it fails to fairly state all of the material evidence, including that not favorable to it (e.g., Addecco Employment Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rios) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1331 (writ den.); City of Torrance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Moore) (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 948 (writ den.); or if it fails to specifically discuss the particular portion(s) of the record that support the petitioner's contentions (e.g., Moore, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 948; Shelton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1995) 60 Cal.Comp.Cases 70 (writ den.).) The petition filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Therefore it is subject to dismissal.

  The petition was dismissed because it was skeletal and failed to cite specific record references as required by law and regulations.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ8761355 · 2022-02-11 · Sacramento 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate 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 →
• ADJ11042677 · 2021-03-11 · Sacramento 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 decision and returned the matter to the trial level to allow the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the matter is pending on 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 TIMOTHY H. HUBER
• THE LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY HUBER
• Law Offices of Timothy H. Huber
• LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY H. HUBER
• LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY HUBER
• Law Offices of Timothy Huber
• LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY HUBER
• Law Office of Timothy Huber

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.