California WCABLaw firm
Shaw Jacobsmeyer Crain & Claffey
Shaw Jacobsmeyer Crain & Claffey is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2013–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Jurisdiction / venue (2) and Apportionment (1). They were heard most often at Anaheim, then Oakland. The firm it meets most often is Glenn Stuckey & Partners (1).
- Decisions
- 9
- Years
- 2013–2025
- Issues disputed
- 7
- District offices
- 6
Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 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.
8 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 8 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.
- ADJ1058134 · 2025-09-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the June 10, 2025 F&O and substitute a new Finding of Fact that defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the statute of limitations and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
Defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the statute of limitations because there was no evidence of notice of benefits to applicant, and the employer did not provide statutory notice, triggering the claims administrator's duty to notify.
Official decision · page 9 → - ADJ10954617 · 2024-06-12 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Here, the WCJ in the F&O refers to defendant's June 28, 2021, Petition to Compel Applicant to Attend the PQME1 and exhibits. However, the Petition to Compel is a motion on the pleadings, akin to a summary judgment motion, which is prohibited by WCAB Rule 10515. After a review of the adjudication file, neither the petition nor its exhibits have been admitted into evidence, the documents are only uploaded into EAMS, but are not marked as admitted into evidence. Thus, there is no record nor evidence in the record as required by Hamilton, supra. Thus, the WCJ must hold a hearing on defendant's request for applicant to be evaluated by a PQME and at that time parties may make their arguments regarding compelling applicant to attend the PQME.
The WCJ's order compelling attendance at the PQME was rescinded due to lack of a proper evidentiary record and procedural issues, requiring a hearing on the matter.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ13057141 · 2024-05-16 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The essence of applicant's argument is that applicant's disability to the psyche in 2008 does not overlap with the current disability to psyche in 2019, and thus defendant failed to prove apportionment. The injury to psyche in both cases was post-traumatic stress disorder. Applicant's disability was rated the exact same way, using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). The diminished future earnings capacity modifier for both cases was 1.4. It is the same body part, same diagnosis, and same rating method in both cases. On these facts the two disabilities clearly overlap. (See, Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (2006), 142 Cal. App. 4th 1099.) The WCJ was correct to apply apportionment under section 4664.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the permanent disability from the 2019 injury overlapped with the prior 2008 injury, and thus apportionment under section 4664 applied, negating compensable permanent disability for the 2019 injury.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ11292351 · 2024-01-22 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and Defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of November 3, 2023, wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending December 24, 2017, decedent sustained industrial injury to his lungs leading to his death. Although the WCJ found industrial injury, it was found that decedent was not entitled to any statutory presumption of pneumonia for certain specified public safety workers. (Lab. Code, § 3212 et seq.) It was found that widow Gloria the applicant was decedent's total dependent at the time of injury, and that his daughter Celia and granddaughter Karina were partial dependents.
The WCJ and WCAB found substantial evidence that decedent sustained industrial injury to his lungs from influenza contracted at work, but he was not entitled to the statutory presumption of pneumonia injury under Labor Code section 3212 because he was not a specified public safety worker covered by that presumption.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10418232 · 2022-04-07 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.17We are mindful that discerning legislative intent is fraught with difficulty when the statute does not clearly speak for itself. However, for all the reasons referenced above, we believe the most reasonable interpretation of section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) is that they are intended to apply only to athletes who cannot establish jurisdiction under section 3600.5, subdivision (a) or section 5305. Because it is undisputed that applicant was hired in California multiple times during the cumulative trauma injury period, we may properly exercise jurisdiction over his claim pursuant to those sections, and we will reverse the WCJ's finding to the contrary, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
The Board concluded that subdivisions (c) and (d) of Labor Code section 3600.5 do not apply because the applicant was hired in California multiple times during the injury period, establishing jurisdiction under subdivision (a) and section 5305.
Official decision · page 17 → - ADJ7460656 · 2013-01-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.112 We previously granted reconsideration of the August 7, 2012 Finding and Order of the workers'
The Appeals Board held that the forum selection clause in the employment contract was reasonable and enforceable, and that California has a stronger public policy interest in enforcing the parties' forum selection clause than in exercising jurisdiction over the claim. Applicant did not meet the burden to show the clause was unreasonable.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ11401401 · 2021-09-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) seeks removal of the Minute Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 4, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ ordered the parties to obtain a report from the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), Dr. Martha Singer, addressing the newest Kaiser records. Discovery was otherwise ordered to remain closed.1
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's order to obtain a QME report addressing new Kaiser records was not supported by a complete evidentiary record and that the defendant's petition for removal was justified due to procedural violations and lack of evidence.
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.
- SHAW, JACOBSMEYER, CRAIN & CLAFFEY
- Shaw Jacobsmeyer Crain & Claffey
- SHAW, JACOBSMEYER, CRAIN & CLAFFEY, LLP
- Shaw, Jacobsmeyer, Crain & Claffey, PC
- Shaw Jacobsmeyer Crain Claffey & Nix
- SHAW JACOBSMEYER CRAIN CLAFFEY
- SHAW JACOBSMEYER LAW
- SHAW JACOBSMEYER
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.