California WCABLaw firm

Lister, Martin & Thompson

Lister, Martin & Thompson is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2014–2024. The disputes run to QME/AME process (2), Permanent disability rating (2) and AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Long Beach, then Santa Ana. The firm it meets most often is Hinden & Breslavsky (1).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2014–2024
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 5

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 4 of 5 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

6 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

Long Beach 4
Santa Ana 2
Van Nuys 2
Los Angeles 1
Marina del Rey 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
3 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ325769 · 2024-02-02 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.2Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the WCJ erred in relying upon her July 16, 2013 denial of applicant's claim of cumulative trauma through November 18, 2001 (ADJ8143323) to reject amendment of the specific injuries of May 18, 1999 (ADJ325769) and January 11, 2001 (ADJ812096) to cumulative trauma claims. Therefore, we will rescind the WCJ's decisions and return the latter two cases to the trial level for further proceedings and new decisions by the WCJ.
The WCJ erred in relying on a barred cumulative trauma claim to deny permanent disability benefits for two specific injuries; the cases involve different body parts and dates of injury, so the barred claim does not preclude compensation in these cases.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ10561152 · 2023-12-05 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 11, 2023 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his neck, upper extremities, back, right arm, right wrist, left wrist, left shoulder, right shoulder, bladder, colon, upper digestive tract, and injury in form of hypertension while employed as a city manager during the period between April 30, 2014 to April 30, 2015 (ADJ10561152 (MF)), during the period between April 7, 2014 to April 15, 2015 (ADJ10561411), and on July 13, 2016 (ADJ10562671), causing 60% permanent disability. In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated that "there are no increases in impairment rating for psychiatric impairment arising out of a compensable physical injury, with exceptions for violent acts and catastrophic injury, including loss of limb, paralysis, severe burn head injury. Based on the reporting of [Howard Greils, M.D.] (Joint Exhibits E, F, G, H and I), the Applicant's condition is a result of physical injury and thus pursuant to labor code no increase in rating impairment." (Opinion on Decision, at p. 4.)
The WCJ found no compensability for psychiatric injury based on physical injury exceptions, but the WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the compensability of psychiatric injury under Labor Code section 3208.3 and relevant case law, noting the need for further development of the record and legal analysis.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10724008 · 2022-07-11 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3City of Whittier, hereinafter "Petitioner", through its legal representative, filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration to the April 21, 2022, Findings and Award which found that applicant sustained 49% permanent disability to the left knee, left hip, and found compensable injury to the low back and sleep based on the reporting of Petitioner's original treating physician, Dr. Pham, rather than that of the Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr. Kolesnik. Petitioner asserts that the Court acted in excess of its powers, the evidence does not justify the Findings and the Findings do not support the Award.
The court found the applicant sustained 49% permanent disability to the left knee and left hip, rejected apportionment due to lack of substantial medical evidence, and found the pain add-on reasonable and supported by medical evidence.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11802545 · 2021-10-01 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Petitioner contends that it was error for this WCJ to rely on the June 4, 2020 report from the Primary Treating Physician (PTP), Dr. Sam Tabibian (Exhibit 18) because it is not substantial medical evidence. Petitioner claims that the doctor's opinions were based on a false / inaccurate history, that his opinions are internally inconsistent and ambiguous. Petitioner also claims that the report is not substantial because the doctor did not discuss LC§ 5412 and because the doctor did not directly review all of the Applicant's past medical records.
The WCJ found the Primary Treating Physician's (PTP) report by Dr. Sam Tabibian to be substantial medical evidence despite alleged errors and inconsistencies, relying on the treating physician's direct treatment and examination of the applicant.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ116469 · 2021-04-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of March 23, 2020, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a police officer by the City of Torrance during the period May 20, 1982 through March 6, 2003, sustained industrial injury in the form of bladder cancer. The WCJ also found that the injury is presumptively industrial pursuant to Labor Code section 3212.1, that defendant failed to rebut the presumption of industrial causation under section 3212.1, and that the date of injury for purposes of Labor Code section 5412 is September 25, 2018.
The Appeals Board found that the applicant's bladder cancer began developing during his active employment period, entitling him to the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.1, despite the cancer manifesting after the statutory extension period.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6779197 · 2014-04-02 · Long Beach District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.24 Based upon our review of the relevant statutes and case law, we hold that:
The Labor Code requires that an employee return to the same evaluator only when a new medical issue arises in the same claim of injury, not for subsequent claims of injury. Rule 35.5(e) is inconsistent with the Labor Code and invalid to the extent it requires return to the same evaluator for new injuries involving the same parties and body parts.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ6779197 · 2014-02-27 · Long Beach District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.315 I. The Labor Code does not require an employee to return to the same QME for an
The Labor Code requires that all medical-legal evaluations address all medical issues arising from all reported claims of injury at the time of an evaluation, and generally requires returning to the original evaluator only when a new medical issue arises in the same claim or when reopening the same claim. The Labor Code makes no distinction based on same or different body parts or parties. Therefore, an employee is not required to return to the same panel QME for a subsequent claim of injury, and Rule 35.5(e) is inconsistent with the Labor Code and invalid.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ15911190 · 2024-07-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Here, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, we will deny the petition to the extent it seeks to disqualify the WCJs.
The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under the applicable law and rules to establish grounds for removal or disqualification. The applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and the petition was untimely and unverified.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ14657845 · 2023-05-08 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Petitioner is correct that a formal MSC was held only in one of the two cases. The court accepts as correct that defense counsel's awareness of Exhibits D and E in his own file first arose when he said it did, specifically mid-way through the first day of trial. Both exhibits, however, were relevant to the statute contentions in both cases. The obligation of a party to respond to reasonable requests for discovery is not a passive one. Petitioner offered (and offers) no plausible explanation as to why the letters were not earlier recognized and produced when first demanded by applicant. A failure to produce relevant documents, including those predictably destined to be exhibits on fulcrum issues, may result in their exclusion from evidence. In this case, the court determined Exhibits D and E must be excluded.
The court found no plausible explanation for the late discovery and non-disclosure of exhibits D and E, and upheld their exclusion as a sanction for failure to produce relevant documents timely.
Official decision · page 9 →

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.

LISTER, MARTIN & THOMPSON, LLP
LISTER, MARTIN & THOMPSON
LISTER MARTIN
Lister, Martin & Thompson
LISTER MARTIN & THOMPSON

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 →

Lister, Martin & Thompson

Decisions

Years

2014–2024

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

3 for the defense

2 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.

ADJ325769 · 2024-02-02 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.2Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the WCJ erred in relying upon her July 16, 2013 denial of applicant's claim of cumulative trauma through November 18, 2001 (ADJ8143323) to reject amendment of the specific injuries of May 18, 1999 (ADJ325769) and January 11, 2001 (ADJ812096) to cumulative trauma claims. Therefore, we will rescind the WCJ's decisions and return the latter two cases to the trial level for further proceedings and new decisions by the WCJ.

The WCJ erred in relying on a barred cumulative trauma claim to deny permanent disability benefits for two specific injuries; the cases involve different body parts and dates of injury, so the barred claim does not preclude compensation in these cases.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ10561152 · 2023-12-05 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 11, 2023 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his neck, upper extremities, back, right arm, right wrist, left wrist, left shoulder, right shoulder, bladder, colon, upper digestive tract, and injury in form of hypertension while employed as a city manager during the period between April 30, 2014 to April 30, 2015 (ADJ10561152 (MF)), during the period between April 7, 2014 to April 15, 2015 (ADJ10561411), and on July 13, 2016 (ADJ10562671), causing 60% permanent disability. In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated that "there are no increases in impairment rating for psychiatric impairment arising out of a compensable physical injury, with exceptions for violent acts and catastrophic injury, including loss of limb, paralysis, severe burn head injury. Based on the reporting of [Howard Greils, M.D.] (Joint Exhibits E, F, G, H and I), the Applicant's condition is a result of physical injury and thus pursuant to labor code no increase in rating impairment." (Opinion on Decision, at p. 4.)

The WCJ found no compensability for psychiatric injury based on physical injury exceptions, but the WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the compensability of psychiatric injury under Labor Code section 3208.3 and relevant case law, noting the need for further development of the record and legal analysis.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10724008 · 2022-07-11 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3City of Whittier, hereinafter "Petitioner", through its legal representative, filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration to the April 21, 2022, Findings and Award which found that applicant sustained 49% permanent disability to the left knee, left hip, and found compensable injury to the low back and sleep based on the reporting of Petitioner's original treating physician, Dr. Pham, rather than that of the Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr. Kolesnik. Petitioner asserts that the Court acted in excess of its powers, the evidence does not justify the Findings and the Findings do not support the Award.

The court found the applicant sustained 49% permanent disability to the left knee and left hip, rejected apportionment due to lack of substantial medical evidence, and found the pain add-on reasonable and supported by medical evidence.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11802545 · 2021-10-01 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Petitioner contends that it was error for this WCJ to rely on the June 4, 2020 report from the Primary Treating Physician (PTP), Dr. Sam Tabibian (Exhibit 18) because it is not substantial medical evidence. Petitioner claims that the doctor's opinions were based on a false / inaccurate history, that his opinions are internally inconsistent and ambiguous. Petitioner also claims that the report is not substantial because the doctor did not discuss LC§ 5412 and because the doctor did not directly review all of the Applicant's past medical records.

The WCJ found the Primary Treating Physician's (PTP) report by Dr. Sam Tabibian to be substantial medical evidence despite alleged errors and inconsistencies, relying on the treating physician's direct treatment and examination of the applicant.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ116469 · 2021-04-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of March 23, 2020, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a police officer by the City of Torrance during the period May 20, 1982 through March 6, 2003, sustained industrial injury in the form of bladder cancer. The WCJ also found that the injury is presumptively industrial pursuant to Labor Code section 3212.1, that defendant failed to rebut the presumption of industrial causation under section 3212.1, and that the date of injury for purposes of Labor Code section 5412 is September 25, 2018.

The Appeals Board found that the applicant's bladder cancer began developing during his active employment period, entitling him to the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.1, despite the cancer manifesting after the statutory extension period.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6779197 · 2014-04-02 · Long Beach District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.24 Based upon our review of the relevant statutes and case law, we hold that:

The Labor Code requires that an employee return to the same evaluator only when a new medical issue arises in the same claim of injury, not for subsequent claims of injury. Rule 35.5(e) is inconsistent with the Labor Code and invalid to the extent it requires return to the same evaluator for new injuries involving the same parties and body parts.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ6779197 · 2014-02-27 · Long Beach District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.315 I. The Labor Code does not require an employee to return to the same QME for an

The Labor Code requires that all medical-legal evaluations address all medical issues arising from all reported claims of injury at the time of an evaluation, and generally requires returning to the original evaluator only when a new medical issue arises in the same claim or when reopening the same claim. The Labor Code makes no distinction based on same or different body parts or parties. Therefore, an employee is not required to return to the same panel QME for a subsequent claim of injury, and Rule 35.5(e) is inconsistent with the Labor Code and invalid.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ15911190 · 2024-07-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Here, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, we will deny the petition to the extent it seeks to disqualify the WCJs.

The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under the applicable law and rules to establish grounds for removal or disqualification. The applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and the petition was untimely and unverified.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ14657845 · 2023-05-08 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Petitioner is correct that a formal MSC was held only in one of the two cases. The court accepts as correct that defense counsel's awareness of Exhibits D and E in his own file first arose when he said it did, specifically mid-way through the first day of trial. Both exhibits, however, were relevant to the statute contentions in both cases. The obligation of a party to respond to reasonable requests for discovery is not a passive one. Petitioner offered (and offers) no plausible explanation as to why the letters were not earlier recognized and produced when first demanded by applicant. A failure to produce relevant documents, including those predictably destined to be exhibits on fulcrum issues, may result in their exclusion from evidence. In this case, the court determined Exhibits D and E must be excluded.

The court found no plausible explanation for the late discovery and non-disclosure of exhibits D and E, and upheld their exclusion as a sanction for failure to produce relevant documents timely.

Official decision · page 9 →