California WCABLaw firm

Seyfarth Shaw

Seyfarth Shaw is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (4), AOE/COE (1) and Contribution / subrogation (1). They were heard most often at Santa Ana, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Glenn Stuckey & Partners (3).

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 4

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 9 of 12 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

9 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

Santa Ana 6
Van Nuys 3
Marina del Rey 2
Anaheim 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 defense
4 for the applicant
2 returned for more record

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ8627409 · 2025-02-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8Here, AIFSIF's attorneys filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Summit, the administrator, on April 12, 2021. This Notice of Appearance contains no indication that Summit and therefore AIFSIF was appearing specially to contest personal jurisdiction. Strictly speaking, it appears that this conduct was sufficient, standing alone, to waive any objection to personal jurisdiction, despite the attorney's assertion three days later of the personal jurisdiction objection at the first hearing the attorney attended.
AIFSIF's conduct, including filing a Notice of Appearance without a special appearance and participating in the merits for nearly two years before seeking adjudication, constituted a waiver of personal jurisdiction objection.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ9146501 · 2023-02-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant appears to have played four games in California during the course of his professional career, and also testified to participating in practices during a fifth trip to California, though he did not actually play in that game. Applicant does not appear to contest the WCJ's finding that he played in at least 146 games across his career, each with their own associated practices.3 Therefore, even viewing matters in the light most favorable to applicant, it appears that his total California exposure amounts to at best approximately 3% of his total playing career almost exactly the same percentage as in Johnson, where one game out of 34 also represented roughly 3% of the injury exposure the Johnson Court considered.
The applicant's cumulative trauma injury exposure in California was only about 3% of his total career, insufficient to establish a significant connection to California for jurisdiction under Johnson, and the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ6966914 · 2022-12-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded
Determinative passage · p.6In summary, we conclude that the WCJ must revisit the date of cumulative trauma injury under section 5412 versus apportionment of liability under section 5500.5, the extent to which applicant's cumulative trauma injury had sufficient contacts to California from 2001-2003, and whether or not liability for the cumulative trauma from June 1, 1997 through December 31, 2007 may be "rolled back" to applicant's employment by the out-of-state teams from 2001-2003. We emphasize that no final opinion is expressed as to whether such "roll back" is legally permissible in this complex matter. When the WCJ issues a new decision on the outstanding issues, any aggrieved party may seek reconsideration as provided in Labor Code sections 5900 et seq.
The WCJ must revisit the date of cumulative trauma injury under section 5412 and apportionment of liability under section 5500.5, including whether liability may be rolled back to earlier employers for the period 2001-2003, due to unresolved factual and legal issues.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ9145976 · 2022-10-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Despite an extensive discussion of Item 3C of the USF&G policy in the Petition for Reconsideration, the arbitrator did not attempt to analyze whether the language of 3C includes or excludes California. While the arbitrator is correct that "most insurance policies have conditions for coverage," it is essential to analyze the exact words of the particular policy at issue. As mentioned above, the extension of coverage to other states found in Part Three of the standard policy provides that workers' compensation coverage is provided for other states listed in 3C. Thus, before proceeding with further analysis, the arbitrator should determine whether California
The arbitrator did not provide an adequate basis for concluding there was no coverage under the USF&G policy for out-of-state injuries, so the issue was deferred back to the arbitrator for further explanation.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10274932 · 2022-08-26 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, and for the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration, amend the WCJ's decision to admit the reports of Robert Afra, M.D., and Jens Dimmick, M.D., and otherwise affirm the May 31, 2022 Findings and Order.
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to admit the medical reports of Dr. Afra and Dr. Dimmick, finding them admissible but not substantial medical evidence, consistent with the WCJ's analysis.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9095459 · 2023-12-11 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldeferred
Determinative passage · p.7For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge on September 19, 2023 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge on September 19, 2023 is GRANTED.
The Appeals Board granted both applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration and deferred the final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ15999271 · 2022-10-13 · Van Nuys 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 because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13445560 · 2022-08-24 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on July 11, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14502172 · 2022-01-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have reviewed the record in this case, the allegations of the Petition for Removal, and the contents of the Report. We will dismiss the Petition for Removal as moot pursuant to WCAB Rule 10955, subdivision (d) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(d)).
The WCJ amended the order complained of within 15 days of the petition filing, removing the harm and thus the petition was deemed automatically dismissed as moot under WCAB Rule 10955(d).
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11587947 · 2021-06-10 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on March 18, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal of the petition.
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.

SEYFARTH SHAW
Seyfarth Shaw
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

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 →

Seyfarth Shaw

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

4 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ8627409 · 2025-02-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8Here, AIFSIF's attorneys filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Summit, the administrator, on April 12, 2021. This Notice of Appearance contains no indication that Summit and therefore AIFSIF was appearing specially to contest personal jurisdiction. Strictly speaking, it appears that this conduct was sufficient, standing alone, to waive any objection to personal jurisdiction, despite the attorney's assertion three days later of the personal jurisdiction objection at the first hearing the attorney attended.

AIFSIF's conduct, including filing a Notice of Appearance without a special appearance and participating in the merits for nearly two years before seeking adjudication, constituted a waiver of personal jurisdiction objection.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ9146501 · 2023-02-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant appears to have played four games in California during the course of his professional career, and also testified to participating in practices during a fifth trip to California, though he did not actually play in that game. Applicant does not appear to contest the WCJ's finding that he played in at least 146 games across his career, each with their own associated practices.3 Therefore, even viewing matters in the light most favorable to applicant, it appears that his total California exposure amounts to at best approximately 3% of his total playing career almost exactly the same percentage as in Johnson, where one game out of 34 also represented roughly 3% of the injury exposure the Johnson Court considered.

The applicant's cumulative trauma injury exposure in California was only about 3% of his total career, insufficient to establish a significant connection to California for jurisdiction under Johnson, and the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ6966914 · 2022-12-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded

Determinative passage · p.6In summary, we conclude that the WCJ must revisit the date of cumulative trauma injury under section 5412 versus apportionment of liability under section 5500.5, the extent to which applicant's cumulative trauma injury had sufficient contacts to California from 2001-2003, and whether or not liability for the cumulative trauma from June 1, 1997 through December 31, 2007 may be "rolled back" to applicant's employment by the out-of-state teams from 2001-2003. We emphasize that no final opinion is expressed as to whether such "roll back" is legally permissible in this complex matter. When the WCJ issues a new decision on the outstanding issues, any aggrieved party may seek reconsideration as provided in Labor Code sections 5900 et seq.

The WCJ must revisit the date of cumulative trauma injury under section 5412 and apportionment of liability under section 5500.5, including whether liability may be rolled back to earlier employers for the period 2001-2003, due to unresolved factual and legal issues.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ9145976 · 2022-10-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Despite an extensive discussion of Item 3C of the USF&G policy in the Petition for Reconsideration, the arbitrator did not attempt to analyze whether the language of 3C includes or excludes California. While the arbitrator is correct that "most insurance policies have conditions for coverage," it is essential to analyze the exact words of the particular policy at issue. As mentioned above, the extension of coverage to other states found in Part Three of the standard policy provides that workers' compensation coverage is provided for other states listed in 3C. Thus, before proceeding with further analysis, the arbitrator should determine whether California

The arbitrator did not provide an adequate basis for concluding there was no coverage under the USF&G policy for out-of-state injuries, so the issue was deferred back to the arbitrator for further explanation.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10274932 · 2022-08-26 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, and for the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration, amend the WCJ's decision to admit the reports of Robert Afra, M.D., and Jens Dimmick, M.D., and otherwise affirm the May 31, 2022 Findings and Order.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to admit the medical reports of Dr. Afra and Dr. Dimmick, finding them admissible but not substantial medical evidence, consistent with the WCJ's analysis.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9095459 · 2023-12-11 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldeferred

Determinative passage · p.7For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge on September 19, 2023 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge on September 19, 2023 is GRANTED.

The Appeals Board granted both applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration and deferred the final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ15999271 · 2022-10-13 · Van Nuys 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 because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13445560 · 2022-08-24 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on July 11, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14502172 · 2022-01-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have reviewed the record in this case, the allegations of the Petition for Removal, and the contents of the Report. We will dismiss the Petition for Removal as moot pursuant to WCAB Rule 10955, subdivision (d) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(d)).

The WCJ amended the order complained of within 15 days of the petition filing, removing the harm and thus the petition was deemed automatically dismissed as moot under WCAB Rule 10955(d).

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11587947 · 2021-06-10 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on March 18, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal of the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →