California WCABLaw firm

Park Guenthart

Park Guenthart is named in 18 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Psyche AOE/COE (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Redding, then Lodi. The firm it meets most often is Gorman Law (6).

Decisions: 18
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 11

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 9 of 10 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.

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

5 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

5 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

Redding 6
Lodi 3
Los Angeles 1
Marina del Rey 1
Pomona 1
Riverside 1
Sacramento 1
San Francisco 1
San Jose 1
Santa Ana 1
Van Nuys 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.

6 for the applicant
6 for the defense
3 returned for more record

Counted over 15 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.

ADJ17606447 · 2025-11-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 14, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from June 1, 2006 to October 1, 2015, claims to have sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, back, thighs, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral fingers, bilateral legs, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral toes, feet, internal, ENT/TMG, neurological, psyche, and sleep. The WCJ found that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Philadelphia Phillies and the Fargo-Moorehead Redhawks.
The Board preliminarily found that the WCJ erred in finding lack of personal jurisdiction because the applicant was recruited and signed contracts with both teams in California, establishing sufficient contacts for jurisdiction, warranting reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16112899 · 2023-07-11 · Sacramento District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the contents of the Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will amend the March 28, 2023 F&O to find that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event (Finding 5) and that applicant's claim of injury to her psyche is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Otherwise, we will affirm the March 28, 2023 F&O.
The Board found that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event, thus the applicant's psychiatric injury claim is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The applicant's credible testimony and expert medical opinions supported causation and compensability.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10372746 · 2023-02-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.3(a) A psychiatric injury shall be compensable if it is a mental disorder which causes disability or need for medical treatment,... ... (b)(3) For the purposes of this section, "substantial cause" means at least 35 to 40 percent of the causation from all sources combined. ... (h) No compensation under this division shall be paid by an employer for a psychiatric injury if the injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. The burden of proof shall rest with the party asserting the issue. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3)
The Appeals Board found the WCJ's original decision lacked a detailed Rolda analysis on the good faith personnel action defense, requiring remand for further factual and legal study.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ19596609 · 2025-10-29 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on September 29, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner and therefore dismissed
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ20331276 · 2025-09-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on April 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ set the matter for a bifurcated trial on defendant's claim that applicant's injury is barred by the post- termination defense.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to applicant.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15136580 · 2025-05-09 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification filed by the applicant and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we will grant applicant's petition for disqualification of the assigned trial judge, order the assigned trial judge disqualified, and return this matter to the Presiding Judge for reassignment of the case to a new WCJ.
The Appeals Board found an appearance of bias sufficient to warrant disqualification despite no actual bias being proven, based on the objective test of whether a reasonable person might doubt the judge's impartiality.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16161110 · 2024-07-01 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On May 20, 2024, applicant's attorney filed a "Petition for Reconsideration of Order and Removal from WCJ and Proposed Supplement to Pending Petition for Disqualification and Removal" (Petition). Applicant seeks reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) "Order Granting Petition for Credit due to Overpayment of Temporary Disability Benefits Pursuant to Labor Code § 4909" issued on April 23, 2024, wherein the WCJ summarily granted defendant's petition for credit.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's April 23, 2024 order was issued without an adequate record, violating due process rights, and thus granted reconsideration and deferred the final decision pending further review.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16856856 · 2023-05-05 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on March 6, 2023 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10371478 · 2023-03-10 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed
Determinative passage · p.1On August 1, 2022, applicant's attorney (petitioner) filed a Petition for Disqualification (Petition) seeking to disqualify the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) from the proceeding, based upon the appearance of bias stemming from the issuance of an Order on July 29, 2022. By the Order, the WCJ denied petitioner's request to hold a hearing electronically, rather than in person, in order avoid the risk of exposing petitioner's father to COVID-19. (Order Denying Request for Electronic Hearing, July 29, 2022.)
The WCJ's denial of the electronic hearing request was based on a misunderstanding of procedural rules, not bias; however, issuing the order without a hearing violated due process, warranting removal and rescinding the order.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11106272 · 2022-04-22 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ10040847 · 2021-08-04 · Marina del Rey 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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 →

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.

PARK|GUENTHART
PARK GUENTHART
PARK GUENTHART LAW FIRM
PARK GUENTHART LAW
PARK & GUENTHART
PARK | GUENTHART
PARK, GUENTHART
Park Guenthart

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 →

Park Guenthart

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

6 for the defense

3 returned for more record

Counted over 15 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.

ADJ17606447 · 2025-11-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 14, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from June 1, 2006 to October 1, 2015, claims to have sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, back, thighs, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral fingers, bilateral legs, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral toes, feet, internal, ENT/TMG, neurological, psyche, and sleep. The WCJ found that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Philadelphia Phillies and the Fargo-Moorehead Redhawks.

The Board preliminarily found that the WCJ erred in finding lack of personal jurisdiction because the applicant was recruited and signed contracts with both teams in California, establishing sufficient contacts for jurisdiction, warranting reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16112899 · 2023-07-11 · Sacramento District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the contents of the Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will amend the March 28, 2023 F&O to find that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event (Finding 5) and that applicant's claim of injury to her psyche is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Otherwise, we will affirm the March 28, 2023 F&O.

The Board found that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event, thus the applicant's psychiatric injury claim is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The applicant's credible testimony and expert medical opinions supported causation and compensability.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10372746 · 2023-02-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.3(a) A psychiatric injury shall be compensable if it is a mental disorder which causes disability or need for medical treatment,... ... (b)(3) For the purposes of this section, "substantial cause" means at least 35 to 40 percent of the causation from all sources combined. ... (h) No compensation under this division shall be paid by an employer for a psychiatric injury if the injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. The burden of proof shall rest with the party asserting the issue. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3)

The Appeals Board found the WCJ's original decision lacked a detailed Rolda analysis on the good faith personnel action defense, requiring remand for further factual and legal study.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ19596609 · 2025-10-29 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on September 29, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner and therefore dismissed

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ20331276 · 2025-09-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on April 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ set the matter for a bifurcated trial on defendant's claim that applicant's injury is barred by the post- termination defense.

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to applicant.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15136580 · 2025-05-09 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification filed by the applicant and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we will grant applicant's petition for disqualification of the assigned trial judge, order the assigned trial judge disqualified, and return this matter to the Presiding Judge for reassignment of the case to a new WCJ.

The Appeals Board found an appearance of bias sufficient to warrant disqualification despite no actual bias being proven, based on the objective test of whether a reasonable person might doubt the judge's impartiality.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16161110 · 2024-07-01 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On May 20, 2024, applicant's attorney filed a "Petition for Reconsideration of Order and Removal from WCJ and Proposed Supplement to Pending Petition for Disqualification and Removal" (Petition). Applicant seeks reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) "Order Granting Petition for Credit due to Overpayment of Temporary Disability Benefits Pursuant to Labor Code § 4909" issued on April 23, 2024, wherein the WCJ summarily granted defendant's petition for credit.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's April 23, 2024 order was issued without an adequate record, violating due process rights, and thus granted reconsideration and deferred the final decision pending further review.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16856856 · 2023-05-05 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on March 6, 2023 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10371478 · 2023-03-10 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed

Determinative passage · p.1On August 1, 2022, applicant's attorney (petitioner) filed a Petition for Disqualification (Petition) seeking to disqualify the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) from the proceeding, based upon the appearance of bias stemming from the issuance of an Order on July 29, 2022. By the Order, the WCJ denied petitioner's request to hold a hearing electronically, rather than in person, in order avoid the risk of exposing petitioner's father to COVID-19. (Order Denying Request for Electronic Hearing, July 29, 2022.)

The WCJ's denial of the electronic hearing request was based on a misunderstanding of procedural rules, not bias; however, issuing the order without a hearing violated due process, warranting removal and rescinding the order.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11106272 · 2022-04-22 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ10040847 · 2021-08-04 · Marina del Rey 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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 →