California WCABLaw firm

Raymond E. Frost & Associates

Raymond E. Frost & Associates is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (5), AOE/COE (2) and Apportionment (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then San Jose.

Decisions: 11
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 7
District offices: 3

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 8
San Jose 2
Santa Rosa 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.

7 for the applicant
2 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ15833920 · 2026-02-13 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2On November 13, 2025, the WCJ issued the instant F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant's industrial injury resulted in permanent and total disability. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) The accompanying Opinion on Decision explains that neurology QME Dr. McQuinn rated applicant's industrial vertigo at 29 percent whole person impairment (WPI), and applicant's headaches at 22 percent WPI. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 6-7.) Dr. McQuinn further opined that the impairment for applicant's vertigo and headache impairments should be added, rather than combined, because there was no significant overlap in the affected Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). (Id. at p. 7.) The WCJ observed that after adjustment for age, occupation, and future earnings modifier, applicant's vertigo resulted in 60 percent permanent disability, while the headaches resulted in 50 percent permanent disability.
The WCAB found substantial medical evidence supporting the addition rather than combination of neurological impairments based on distinct activities of daily living affected by headaches and vertigo, leading to a finding of permanent and total disability.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ6649353 · 2024-04-26 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3The difficulty with Zurich's position (as also noted in the Findings, Award, and Order) is that Dr. Newman's 5-19-13 report stated that the 2-17-09 injury caused overlap with the 12-01-06 injury, and that the 2-17-09 injury "aggravated" the 12-01-06 injury.[3] The variance in job duties, noted by Zurich for the second CT period, ignores the fact that Applicant testified that his job duties remained essentially the same during his entire period of employment. (See Exhibit HH, the applicant Depo, 49:15, 50:14 and 52:24) Hence, the first cumulative trauma injury was caused by the same essential work duties that Dr. Newman believes caused the second cumulative trauma injury. (See Exhibit GG, Newman Depo, 9:25, 13:4 and 14:25)
The Board affirmed the Arbitrator's finding that the cumulative trauma injury periods overlapped and were caused by the same essential work duties, thus liability falls on the insurer covering the last year of injurious exposure per Labor Code Section 5500.5.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11434587 · 2024-03-12 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6II. Applicant contends that the issue in this case is whether the WCJ appropriately decided that he could not rely on Dr. Mirza's medical reports when deciding the issues of applicant's permanent disability and further medical treatment because Dr. Mirza was not applicant's primary treating physician. The parties disagree on whether Dr. Mirza was in defendant's MPN and disagree as to whether Dr. Mirza is applicant's primary treating physician. As noted above, while the WCJ made no finding as to the issue of Dr. Mirza's reports, he determined that he could not rely on Dr. Mirza's medical reports as he believed that Dr. Mirza was not applicant's primary treating physician. (OOD, pp. 2-3.) However, whether Dr.
The WCJ erred in rejecting Dr. Mirza's reports on the basis that he was not the primary treating physician. The Appeals Board held that the issue of primary treating physician is a payment issue and does not affect the reliability of the medical reports for permanent disability and further medical treatment. The Board found that Dr. Mirza's reports constitute substantial evidence and the record must be further developed.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11662102 · 2023-10-09 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Clearly, the cover letter of January 19, 2023 to the QME for the reevaluation set on January 23, 2023 was not served on the defendant twenty days in advance of the evaluation as required by Labor Code Section 4062.3. Sections 4062.3(b) and (e) are mandatory as each party "shall" comply with service of both information and communications intended for the QME twenty days in advance of the evaluation. The plain reading of the statute requires strict application. Applicant's cover letter, served on defendant on January 19, 2023 after close of business for the evaluation date of January 23, 2023 was in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3. Defendant's objection dated January 30, 2023, was within ten calendar days of the first service of applicant's cover letter and is timely and valid.
The Appeals Board found that although the applicant violated the 20-day service requirement under Labor Code section 4062.3, the defendant was not prejudiced to a degree warranting a replacement QME panel, considering the Suon factors and the long involvement of Dr. Blackwell as QME.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ16362715 · 2023-09-25 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8Based on all of the foregoing, and with no sufficient medical evidence presented to the contrary, Dr. Pang's analysis and opinion constitutes substantial evidence, and presents as more persuasive, to wit: Applicant suffered a new and distinct injury to his lumbar spine, cervical and thoracic spine, pelvis, coccyx, and right shoulder girdle as a result of the work-related incident of 12-23-2020.
The Board found Dr. Pang's opinion that the December 23, 2020 incident caused new injuries to multiple body parts more persuasive and substantial evidence than Dr. Feinberg's non-committal and contradictory opinions, supporting a finding of new injury AOE/COE from the work incident.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ13757266 · 2023-01-31 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8William Brose, M.D. is the parties' panel qualified medical evaluator (hereinafter referred to as "PQME") in this matter. Dr. Brose evaluated applicant on 04/30/2019, 02/24/2021 and 03/01/2022, took a thorough history, and reviewed various medical reports and records, and authored five reports. In his reports of 02/24/2021 and 03/01/2022, Dr. Brose opined applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury from December 2017 into January 2018 to her right thumb, right wrist, right elbow, right upper extremity, and left wrist. (Applicant's Exhibit 3 at pages 1, 10; Applicant's Exhibit 4 at pages 1, 10. In his 03/01/2022 report, Dr. Browse provided extensive impairment factors and opined to no apportionment. (Applicant's Exhibit 4 at pages 1, 10 § 14)
The WCJ found the DEU rater's rating more persuasive and consistent with Dr. Brose's medical opinions, which were supported by substantial evidence, and found no apportionment.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ15807564 · 2022-11-18 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2BACKGROUND Applicant claimed injury to his low back while employed by defendant as a deputy sheriff on January 16, 2022. AME Dr. Stark evaluated applicant on March 24, 2022. Dr. Stark examined applicant, took a history and reviewed the medical record. He diagnosed applicant as having a lumbar strain that was aggravating multilevel disc bulges, and low back pain. (Joint Exh. 100, Dr. Stark, March 26, 2022, p. 4.) He then stated:
The WCAB found the AME Dr. Stark's report substantial evidence supporting a 31% permanent partial disability rating, rejecting defendant's argument for a lower rating based on strict AMA Guides application.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11573087 · 2022-08-25 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on October 14, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injury to her wrists, hands and fingers arising out of and in the course of her employment as a legal secretary by defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund, legally uninsured, during the period February 14, 2017 through February 14, 2018, caused permanent partial disability of 29%.
The parties stipulated to a higher permanent partial disability rating of 37%, superseding the WCJ's original 29% rating, leading to remand for WCJ to consider the stipulation.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10713815 · 2021-11-02 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.52. THE JUDGE ERRED BY USING OCCUPATIONAL VARIANT H FOR THE WRISTS. THE CORRECT VARIANT IS J.
The WCJ used occupational variant H for the wrist disability rating, but the correct variant is J according to the Schedule and AMA Guides, as the AME did not use the range of motion method but impairment due to carpal tunnel syndrome.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10407856 · 2021-03-05 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venuemixed
Determinative passage · p.5For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the December 9, 2020 Findings and Order is AFFIRMED, EXCEPT Findings of Fact 5, 6, 7, 8 and the Order are AMENDED as follows:
The arbitrator found, and the WCAB affirmed as amended, that there was insufficient evidence of a valid limiting and restricting endorsement in the insurance policies covering the alleged cumulative trauma period. The WCAB clarified that the sole issue determined was insurance coverage and that rescission was not at issue.
Official decision · page 5 →

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.

RAYMOND E. FROST & ASSOCIATES
Raymond E. Frost & Associates
Raymond E. Frost and Associates

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

7 for the applicant

2 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ15833920 · 2026-02-13 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2On November 13, 2025, the WCJ issued the instant F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant's industrial injury resulted in permanent and total disability. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) The accompanying Opinion on Decision explains that neurology QME Dr. McQuinn rated applicant's industrial vertigo at 29 percent whole person impairment (WPI), and applicant's headaches at 22 percent WPI. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 6-7.) Dr. McQuinn further opined that the impairment for applicant's vertigo and headache impairments should be added, rather than combined, because there was no significant overlap in the affected Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). (Id. at p. 7.) The WCJ observed that after adjustment for age, occupation, and future earnings modifier, applicant's vertigo resulted in 60 percent permanent disability, while the headaches resulted in 50 percent permanent disability.

The WCAB found substantial medical evidence supporting the addition rather than combination of neurological impairments based on distinct activities of daily living affected by headaches and vertigo, leading to a finding of permanent and total disability.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ6649353 · 2024-04-26 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3The difficulty with Zurich's position (as also noted in the Findings, Award, and Order) is that Dr. Newman's 5-19-13 report stated that the 2-17-09 injury caused overlap with the 12-01-06 injury, and that the 2-17-09 injury "aggravated" the 12-01-06 injury.[3] The variance in job duties, noted by Zurich for the second CT period, ignores the fact that Applicant testified that his job duties remained essentially the same during his entire period of employment. (See Exhibit HH, the applicant Depo, 49:15, 50:14 and 52:24) Hence, the first cumulative trauma injury was caused by the same essential work duties that Dr. Newman believes caused the second cumulative trauma injury. (See Exhibit GG, Newman Depo, 9:25, 13:4 and 14:25)

The Board affirmed the Arbitrator's finding that the cumulative trauma injury periods overlapped and were caused by the same essential work duties, thus liability falls on the insurer covering the last year of injurious exposure per Labor Code Section 5500.5.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11434587 · 2024-03-12 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6II. Applicant contends that the issue in this case is whether the WCJ appropriately decided that he could not rely on Dr. Mirza's medical reports when deciding the issues of applicant's permanent disability and further medical treatment because Dr. Mirza was not applicant's primary treating physician. The parties disagree on whether Dr. Mirza was in defendant's MPN and disagree as to whether Dr. Mirza is applicant's primary treating physician. As noted above, while the WCJ made no finding as to the issue of Dr. Mirza's reports, he determined that he could not rely on Dr. Mirza's medical reports as he believed that Dr. Mirza was not applicant's primary treating physician. (OOD, pp. 2-3.) However, whether Dr.

The WCJ erred in rejecting Dr. Mirza's reports on the basis that he was not the primary treating physician. The Appeals Board held that the issue of primary treating physician is a payment issue and does not affect the reliability of the medical reports for permanent disability and further medical treatment. The Board found that Dr. Mirza's reports constitute substantial evidence and the record must be further developed.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11662102 · 2023-10-09 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Clearly, the cover letter of January 19, 2023 to the QME for the reevaluation set on January 23, 2023 was not served on the defendant twenty days in advance of the evaluation as required by Labor Code Section 4062.3. Sections 4062.3(b) and (e) are mandatory as each party "shall" comply with service of both information and communications intended for the QME twenty days in advance of the evaluation. The plain reading of the statute requires strict application. Applicant's cover letter, served on defendant on January 19, 2023 after close of business for the evaluation date of January 23, 2023 was in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3. Defendant's objection dated January 30, 2023, was within ten calendar days of the first service of applicant's cover letter and is timely and valid.

The Appeals Board found that although the applicant violated the 20-day service requirement under Labor Code section 4062.3, the defendant was not prejudiced to a degree warranting a replacement QME panel, considering the Suon factors and the long involvement of Dr. Blackwell as QME.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ16362715 · 2023-09-25 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8Based on all of the foregoing, and with no sufficient medical evidence presented to the contrary, Dr. Pang's analysis and opinion constitutes substantial evidence, and presents as more persuasive, to wit: Applicant suffered a new and distinct injury to his lumbar spine, cervical and thoracic spine, pelvis, coccyx, and right shoulder girdle as a result of the work-related incident of 12-23-2020.

The Board found Dr. Pang's opinion that the December 23, 2020 incident caused new injuries to multiple body parts more persuasive and substantial evidence than Dr. Feinberg's non-committal and contradictory opinions, supporting a finding of new injury AOE/COE from the work incident.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ13757266 · 2023-01-31 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8William Brose, M.D. is the parties' panel qualified medical evaluator (hereinafter referred to as "PQME") in this matter. Dr. Brose evaluated applicant on 04/30/2019, 02/24/2021 and 03/01/2022, took a thorough history, and reviewed various medical reports and records, and authored five reports. In his reports of 02/24/2021 and 03/01/2022, Dr. Brose opined applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury from December 2017 into January 2018 to her right thumb, right wrist, right elbow, right upper extremity, and left wrist. (Applicant's Exhibit 3 at pages 1, 10; Applicant's Exhibit 4 at pages 1, 10. In his 03/01/2022 report, Dr. Browse provided extensive impairment factors and opined to no apportionment. (Applicant's Exhibit 4 at pages 1, 10 § 14)

The WCJ found the DEU rater's rating more persuasive and consistent with Dr. Brose's medical opinions, which were supported by substantial evidence, and found no apportionment.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ15807564 · 2022-11-18 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2BACKGROUND Applicant claimed injury to his low back while employed by defendant as a deputy sheriff on January 16, 2022. AME Dr. Stark evaluated applicant on March 24, 2022. Dr. Stark examined applicant, took a history and reviewed the medical record. He diagnosed applicant as having a lumbar strain that was aggravating multilevel disc bulges, and low back pain. (Joint Exh. 100, Dr. Stark, March 26, 2022, p. 4.) He then stated:

The WCAB found the AME Dr. Stark's report substantial evidence supporting a 31% permanent partial disability rating, rejecting defendant's argument for a lower rating based on strict AMA Guides application.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11573087 · 2022-08-25 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on October 14, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injury to her wrists, hands and fingers arising out of and in the course of her employment as a legal secretary by defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund, legally uninsured, during the period February 14, 2017 through February 14, 2018, caused permanent partial disability of 29%.

The parties stipulated to a higher permanent partial disability rating of 37%, superseding the WCJ's original 29% rating, leading to remand for WCJ to consider the stipulation.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10713815 · 2021-11-02 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.52. THE JUDGE ERRED BY USING OCCUPATIONAL VARIANT H FOR THE WRISTS. THE CORRECT VARIANT IS J.

The WCJ used occupational variant H for the wrist disability rating, but the correct variant is J according to the Schedule and AMA Guides, as the AME did not use the range of motion method but impairment due to carpal tunnel syndrome.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10407856 · 2021-03-05 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venuemixed

Determinative passage · p.5For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the December 9, 2020 Findings and Order is AFFIRMED, EXCEPT Findings of Fact 5, 6, 7, 8 and the Order are AMENDED as follows:

The arbitrator found, and the WCAB affirmed as amended, that there was insufficient evidence of a valid limiting and restricting endorsement in the insurance policies covering the alleged cumulative trauma period. The WCAB clarified that the sole issue determined was insurance coverage and that rescission was not at issue.

Official decision · page 5 →