Wall, McCormick, Baroldi & Dugan

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 11
• Anaheim 6
• Van Nuys 3
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Oakland 1
• Pomona 1
• Sacramento 1
• Santa 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.

• 12 for the applicant
• 8 for the defense
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 24 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.

• ADJ10908652 · 2025-09-16 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Joint Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision" (F&A) issued on June 4, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her psyche during the cumulative period ending on May 25, 2017. The WCJ further found that applicant sustained industrial injury to the psyche in her specific injury case but barred any permanent disability from such injury pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4660.1.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ erred in denying compensability of psychiatric cumulative injury and permanent disability. The medical record showed industrial injury to psyche on a cumulative basis and the QME's intertwined disability opinion required further development. The matter was returned for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13157138 · 2025-09-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.109-10.) The decision in Tanksley emphasized that the parties to a claim of injury occurring prior to January 1, 2005, should not be required to obtain a judicial determination as to the date of injury pursuant to section 5412 in order to determine the appropriate procedure by which to obtain medical-legal reporting. (Ibid.) Such a holding would be inconsistent with the California Constitutional mandate that the workers' compensation law "shall accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character." (Cal. Const., Article XIV, § 4.) In this case, given that the injuries claimed to have occurred prior to January 1, 2005, specifically, during the period of January 5, 1975 to October 1, 1981, Dr. Einbund's reports are admissible.

  The medical reports of Dr. Einbund are admissible because the injury occurred prior to January 1, 2005, and thus the pre-SB 899 medical-legal reporting procedures apply, as supported by case law and statutory interpretation.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ10810740 · 2025-04-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5We also note that while the QME did opine to applicant's period of temporary disability in his April 6, 2022 report which issued more than four years after applicant's industrial injury, the QME identified the period of temporary disability only after a review of applicant's contemporaneous treatment records with primary treating physician Dr. Pietruszka. (Joint Ex. E, Report of Ramin Jebraili, M.D., dated April 6, 2022, at p. 2; see also Joint Ex. G, Report of Ramin Jebriali, M.D., dated February 23, 2021, at pp. 9-10.) Here again, defendant declined to challenge the QME's opinions regarding the period of temporary disability either by request for supplemental reporting or in deposition. Additionally, the Appeals Board is empowered to choose among conflicting medical reports and rely on that which it deems most persuasive. (Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 476 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221].)

  The WCJ credited the QME Dr. Jebraili's opinion and the applicant's undisputed testimony of being off work for 10 months, finding the period of TTD from January 19, 2017 to January 3, 2018 supported by substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ7217330 · 2024-09-10 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the February 21, 2019 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concluded that although applicant had been hired in California, the WCAB nevertheless lacked jurisdiction over his claim due to the presence of a forum selection clause in his contract, requiring him to bring his workers' compensation claim in Wisconsin instead of California. Applicant contests this determination, arguing that the fact of his hire in California renders the forum selection clause unenforceable and makes California an appropriate forum for his claim.

  The WCAB held that if the applicant was hired in California, the forum selection clause in his contract is unenforceable and does not bar WCAB jurisdiction. The WCJ did not make a finding on the hire location, so the case was remanded for that factual determination.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17394446 · 2024-07-15 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, defendant had sufficient notice of injury or claim of injury to give rise to a duty to provide applicant with a DWC-1 claim form. It's failure to do so tolled the statute of limitations. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and issue a new decision reflecting that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

  The WCJ erred in finding the claim barred by the statute of limitations because the employer failed to provide the required DWC-1 form, which tolled the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10110126 · 2024-05-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.16as a professional athlete, Occupational Group No. 590, by the Atlanta Falcons, New Orleans Saints, Pittsburgh Steelers, the Los Angeles Rams, and the St. Louis Rams, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to head, neck, shoulders, hands, wrists, fingers, elbows, back, hips, knees, ankles, feet, toes, neurological, internal, sleep, psyche, and chronic pain. 2. At the time of the claimed injury, the workers' compensation carriers for the various employers were: (1) Great Divide Insurance, administered by Berkley Entertainment for the Atlanta Falcons; (2) Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation for the New Orleans Saints; (3) State Workers Insurance Fund for the Pittsburgh Steelers; (4) California Insurance Guarantee Association for Legion Insurance, in liquidation for the Los Angeles Rams; (5) Fairmont by Zenith for the St. Louis Rams; and, (6) Travelers Insurance also for the St. Louis Rams. 3. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury. 4. The conferral of jurisdiction arising out of applicant's California contract of hire precludes the enforcement of choice of law/forum selection clauses. 5. The issue of whether compensation is barred by Labor Code section 5405 is deferred.

  The issue of whether compensation is barred by section 5405 is deferred pending further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 16 →
• ADJ13327834 · 2024-03-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The only issues framed for trial were injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and defendant's assertion of a post-termination defense pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3600(a)(10). (MOH/SOE, 4/20/22, at p. 2:20-23.) The parties stipulated to an August 14, 2019 date of alleged injury. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 4/20/22, at p. 2:8-9.)

  The parties stipulated to the date of injury as August 14, 2019, and the QME opinion supported the finding of injury AOE/COE on that date.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9089651 · 2024-01-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits of applicant's petition, we find several unexplained inconsistencies in the WCJ's decision. The first one has to do with the issue of industrial injury. As noted before, the WCJ found that applicant failed to prove he sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, right shoulder, wrists, hands, ankles, sleep disorder, kidney and urinary systems, cardiovascular system, cognitive disorder and headaches. However, it appears from the record that applicant was relieved of his burden to prove injury, because it was stipulated at trial that applicant sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, right shoulder, wrists, hands, ankles, sleep disorder, kidney and urinary systems, cardiovascular system, cognitive disorder and headaches. It also appears the parties stipulated that the period of the industrial cumulative trauma injury was "approximately" July 23, 1988 through December 31, 2004. (Minutes of Hearing, January 24, 2019, p. 2:16-21.)

  The WCJ erred in finding no industrial injury despite a stipulation of injury; the WCJ also erred in ruling medical reports inadmissible based on the date of injury and medical-legal procedure; the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ6694887 · 2023-11-30 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record. (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Hamilton).) Our decision in Hamilton further held that, "for the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 476, italics added.) The WCJ or the WCAB, "may act to develop the record with new evidence if, for example, it concludes that neither side has presented substantial evidence on which a decision could be based." (San Bernardino Community Hospital v. Workers. Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) 74 Cal.App.4th 928 (64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986); see also McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 (63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261) [lack of substantial medical evidence on issue in dispute supported development of record]; M/A Com-Phi v. Workers' Comp, Appeals Bd.

  The record does not establish the agent's physical location at the time of acceptance of the contract in California, so the record must be developed further to determine if a valid oral contract of hire was entered into in California.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ9682348 · 2023-01-17 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of the April 14, 2020 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the August 24, 2016 amendment to the application was barred by the statute of limitations. The applicant sought to amend the application to allege that he sustained a cumulative trauma rather than a specific injury.

  The amended application alleging a cumulative trauma injury relates back to the original application because the medical evidence supports a cumulative trauma injury and the claim was accepted and benefits paid accordingly, so the statute of limitations does not bar the amendment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• 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 →
• ADJ11377820 · 2022-10-05 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3On July 28, 2022, this trier of fact issued her Opinion on Decision and Findings and Award finding that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment in the form of multiple sclerosis. It is from this threshold finding that the Petition for Reconsideration was filed contending that 1) this WCJ erred in relying upon portions of the deposition testimony of the applicant that was not admitted into evidence; 2) this WCJ was prohibited from finding injury AOE/COE because the body part at issue remained denied throughout the pendency of the case and the parties stipulated to no injury in the form of multiple sclerosis when settling the claim by way Compromise and Release; and 3) This WCJ misinterpreted and misapplied the law regarding what constitutes an injury. No response has been received from the Lien Claimant.

  The WCJ found that the lien claimant met its burden of proving injury AOE/COE based on the unrebutted medical opinion of PQME Dr. Jay Jurkowitz that applicant's work caused exacerbations of her MS during employment, constituting an industrial injury as an aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• WALL, MCCORMICK, BAROLDI & DUGAN
• WALL MCCORMICK BAROLDI & DUGAN
• Wall, McCormick, Baroldi & Dugan
• Wall McCormick Baroldi & Dugan
• WALL MCCORMICK
• WALL McCORMICK BAROLDI & DUGAN
• Wall McCormick Baroldi Green & Dugan
• Wall, McCormick, Baroldi and Dugan
• WALL, McCORMICK, BAROLDI & DUGAN
• WALL, MCCORMICK & BAROLDI
• Wall, McCormick & Baroldi

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.