California WCABLaw firm

The Clayton Perry Law Office

The Clayton Perry Law Office is named in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to Apportionment (2), Earnings / average weekly earnings (2) and SJDB voucher (2). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Fresno. The firm it meets most often is Bradford & Barthel (1).

Decisions: 5
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 4

Applicant 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.

Who they face

1 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

Los Angeles 2
Fresno 1
Marina del Rey 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.

4 for the defense
2 for the applicant

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ13475083 · 2025-02-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Here, the parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum wage earner on March 11, 2024, after the parties were ordered to develop the record on applicant's earnings. (Minutes of Hearting dated March 11, 2024, p. 2:7.) Although the issue of earnings was still an issue for trial, as the WCJ points out (Report, p. 7), there is no record that defendant moved to be relieved from such stipulation and section 5702 does not permit the WCJ to find contrary to the stipulation absent a hearing and an opportunity for the parties to be heard on this issue. The record does not show a hearing or trial past March 11, 2024. Instead, the record is full of petitions for reconsideration followed by multiple orders vacating and amending Findings and Awards, with the same judicial determination that applicant is not a maximum earner and only clerical changes on the amount of applicant's earnings. This is not permitted absent a full hearing on why the stipulation should be set aside. More importantly, the record does not show that defendant sought to set aside the stipulation.
The parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum earner, and the WCAB held that the stipulation could not be set aside without a hearing, so the finding of maximum earnings was affirmed.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11877438 · 2025-03-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 3, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that there is good cause to order development of the record and there is good cause to order an additional panel in internal medicine.
The petition sought reconsideration of an interlocutory procedural order, which is not final and thus not subject to reconsideration; the petition was dismissed and treated as a removal petition, which was denied because no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11080934 · 2025-02-21 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant 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 deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within the 60-day period from case transmission, so the petition was denied on the merits of removal standards.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11125866 · 2022-10-11 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal 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 →

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.

THE CLAYTON PERRY LAW OFFICE FOR INJURED WORKERS
THE CLAYTON PERRY LAW OFFICE FOR INJURED WORKERS, APC
The Clayton Perry Law Office
CLAYTON PERRY LAW

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 →

The Clayton Perry Law Office

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the defense

2 for the applicant

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ13475083 · 2025-02-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Here, the parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum wage earner on March 11, 2024, after the parties were ordered to develop the record on applicant's earnings. (Minutes of Hearting dated March 11, 2024, p. 2:7.) Although the issue of earnings was still an issue for trial, as the WCJ points out (Report, p. 7), there is no record that defendant moved to be relieved from such stipulation and section 5702 does not permit the WCJ to find contrary to the stipulation absent a hearing and an opportunity for the parties to be heard on this issue. The record does not show a hearing or trial past March 11, 2024. Instead, the record is full of petitions for reconsideration followed by multiple orders vacating and amending Findings and Awards, with the same judicial determination that applicant is not a maximum earner and only clerical changes on the amount of applicant's earnings. This is not permitted absent a full hearing on why the stipulation should be set aside. More importantly, the record does not show that defendant sought to set aside the stipulation.

The parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum earner, and the WCAB held that the stipulation could not be set aside without a hearing, so the finding of maximum earnings was affirmed.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11877438 · 2025-03-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 3, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that there is good cause to order development of the record and there is good cause to order an additional panel in internal medicine.

The petition sought reconsideration of an interlocutory procedural order, which is not final and thus not subject to reconsideration; the petition was dismissed and treated as a removal petition, which was denied because no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11080934 · 2025-02-21 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant 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 deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within the 60-day period from case transmission, so the petition was denied on the merits of removal standards.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11125866 · 2022-10-11 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal 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 →