California WCABLaw firm
Twohy, Darneille & Frye
Twohy, Darneille & Frye is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (5), Permanent disability rating (2) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Sacramento, then Stockton. The firm it meets most often is Mastagni Holstedt (4).
- Decisions
- 10
- Years
- 2021–2025
- Issues disputed
- 6
- District offices
- 2
Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 8 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.
3 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 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.
- ADJ14177811 · 2025-12-31 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Order (F&O) issued on September 29, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant sustained an industrial injury to his throat in the form of throat cancer and that defendant failed to rebut the presumption of compensability pursuant to Labor Code section 3212.1(d).2 Defendant contends that the medical evidence demonstrates non-industrial human papilloma virus (HPV) solely caused applicant to develop his throat cancer, thereby rebutting the section 3212.1(d) presumption.
The Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his throat in the form of throat cancer and that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 3212.1(d). The defendant's medical evidence, including QME Dr. Mahmoudi's opinion, did not meet the burden to establish no reasonable link between the carcinogen exposure and the cancer, as absence of medical literature alone is insufficient to rebut the presumption.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ16663930 · 2025-01-31 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Based upon our review of Dr. Levy's reports, including his October 23, 2023 report, Dr. Levy took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, reviewed all medical records provided, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. Dr. Levy also completed necessary testing including a treadmill test, exercise oximetry, and echocardiogram. (Joint Exhibit CC.) As such, we find that Dr. Levy's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the heart and need for an award of future medical treatment to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of the injury.
Dr. Levy's reports were found to be substantial medical evidence supporting that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her heart, including aggravation of mitral valve prolapse and ventricular ectopy, with ongoing need for medical care. No contradictory medical evidence was found.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ16170210 · 2024-04-29 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact, Award & Orders of February 15, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending July 16, 2021 as a food worker, applicant sustained industrial injury to his abdomen in the form of a hernia.
The WCJ's finding of industrial injury was supported by credible expert medical evidence from Dr. Klein that applicant's work duties contributed to the hernia aggravation, despite the absence of contemporaneous medical records documenting the hernia during employment.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ11331456 · 2023-11-29 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 17, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's October 31, 2017 injury caused 56% permanent disability and that, "There is no good cause for a replacement QME or an appointment of a regular physician." (F&A, p. 1.)
The WCAB found Dr. Nacouzi's medical opinions to be substantial evidence supporting the 56% permanent disability rating and found no good cause to appoint a regular physician or replace the QME.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ16971609 · 2023-06-05 · Sacramento District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4DISCUSSION We turn first to defendant's contention that applicant was on notice of the statute of limitations by February 11, 2016, but "did not file the Application for Adjudication of Claim until November 21, 2022," rendering the application for adjudication herein untimely. Preliminarily we note that the record reveals that applicant filed an application for adjudication alleging that he sustained cumulative injury to his eye, including the optic nerve, on July 1, 2021. (Application for Adjudication, July 1, 2021, ADJ14846298.) Because the July 1, 2021 application was filed more than one year before the November 21, 2022 application on which the Petition relies, it is necessary to examine whether or not it may be operative for the purpose of determining the statute of limitations issue herein--and we will address that issue below. As to defendant's argument that applicant was on notice of the statute of limitations by February 11, 2016, we agree with the WCJ that defendant failed to prove its statute of limitations defense. (Report, pp.
Defendant failed to prove applicant was given proper notice that medical treatment benefits would be limited or denied, so the statute of limitations was tolled until such notice was given.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ12491512 · 2023-05-25 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7An employee has the burden to prove her claim for workers' compensation benefits. Hercules Powder Co. v. IAC (1933) 131 Cal. App. 587. Based on the reports by Dr. Kounang and Dr. Clarfield, Applicant did not meet the burden of proof necessary to establish that she sustained an industrial injury. The record supports a finding of no industrial injury.
Applicant did not meet burden of proof to establish industrial injury based on medical reports and credibility findings.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ11066092 · 2022-05-09 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7APPLICANT PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DAMAGE TO HER KIDNEYS IS A COMPENSABLE CONSEQUENCE OF HER INDUSTRIAL INJURY
Applicant proved by preponderance of evidence that kidney damage was caused by use of Ibuprofen for industrial ankle injury pain, supported by PQME Dr. Scott Anderson's opinion.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ8010054 · 2021-08-09 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration or in the alternative removal of the Minute Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 24, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ found that the Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction over compliance with the process in Labor Code1 section 4850.4(f). (Lab. Code, § 4850.4(f).)2 Defendant's request for a hearing to create a record over the question of jurisdiction was denied.
The WCJ's denial of jurisdiction was a final order subject to reconsideration. The Appeals Board found the denial was made without an evidentiary record, violating due process, and remanded for further proceedings to create a record and decide the issue properly.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ9902354 · 2021-03-09 · Sacramento District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.2Here, based upon the statements in the WCJ's Report that there is a lack of evidence on the issue of temporary disability, and given Dr. Amster's failure to address it in any meaningful way, we conclude that the WCJ's decision must be rescinded, and that this case must be returned to the trial level for further proceedings and new decision by the WCJ. We take this action to provide Dr. Amster an opportunity to supplement his medical opinion by fully addressing the issue of temporary disability. (McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 [Appeals Board en banc].)
The WCJ's findings on temporary disability were rescinded due to lack of sufficient evidence and the failure of the QME to address the issue, requiring further proceedings and a new decision.
Official decision · page 2 →
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.
- TWOHY, DARNEILLE & FRYE
- Twohy, Darneille & Frye
- TWOHY DARNEILLE & FRYE
- TWOHY DARNEILLE & FRYE, APLC
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.