California WCABLaw firm

Bernal & Robbins

Bernal & Robbins is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2) and Penalties under Labor Code §5814 (2). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Santa Ana. The firm it meets most often is Garrett Law Group (3).

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 6

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 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.

Who they face

3 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 6
Santa Ana 2
Anaheim 1
Marina del Rey 1
Oxnard 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.

5 for the applicant
4 for the defense
1 returned for more record

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.

ADJ16251404 · 2025-09-05 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5The dispute here is whether the WCJ erred in finding applicant was not required to answer psychologically related questions. For the reasons detailed below, we conclude that in this case, the WCJ did not err because an allegation of headaches does not constitute a waiver of medical privacy regarding psychiatric care history.
The WCJ did not err because the applicant did not plead a psychiatric injury and thus did not waive her right to privacy regarding psychiatric history; defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal; discovery related to headaches may proceed separately.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ16431629 · 2024-06-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Labor Code section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the "reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, at p. 478), and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 475.)
The WCAB found the record insufficient to review the merits of the sanctions and determined that a hearing was necessary to create a record for proper adjudication, leading to rescission of the sanctions order and remand for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ9910901 · 2024-03-05 · Los Angeles District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814mixed
Determinative passage · p.4(Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 655] ("interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "); Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180 ("[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"); Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kramer), supra, 82 Cal.App.3d at p. 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 665] ("[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders").) Such interlocutory decisions include pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, and similar issues. Here a notice of intent issued, which is not a final order. Accordingly, reconsideration is not proper.
The WCJ's findings on sanctions and costs were rescinded due to insufficient evidence and the need for further record development; the notice of intent to impose sanctions was not removed as it was not a final order.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ15467286 · 2024-03-01 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 11, 2023 (decision), wherein the WCJ found that, on October 19, 2021, applicant "sustained injury to his right ankle while performing his job duties, and was not acting outside the scope of his job duties."
The WCAB found that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment despite conflicting testimony and credibility issues, as the injury occurred while performing job duties with a pallet jack, and defendant failed to prove the injury was due to horseplay or outside employment scope.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12431390 · 2023-12-21 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Pursuant to Section 5412: The date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment. (Lab. Code, § 5412.) As noted above, at the trial the parties stipulated that applicant's period of employment for Atkore International was during the period from November 2013, through January 2019. In order to determine the section 5412 date of injury, the date that applicant first suffered disability and knew that the disability was caused by his employment, must be established. Our review of the record indicates these dates have not been adequately established.
The WCJ did not adequately establish the Section 5412 date of injury or the Section 5500.5 date of injury, so the matter is remanded for further development and determination of these dates and liability.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11994133 · 2022-04-05 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEmixed
Determinative passage · p.7As indicated above, this WCJ does understand that applicant bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE but in light of the unrebutted and credible testimony of applicant's ever- increasing and unmanageable workload across county lines and substantial medical evidence documenting significant worsening of applicant's eye condition during applicant's employment with the employer herein, this WCJ exercised discretion to ensure substantial justice by ordering development of the record consistent with Labor Code § 3202, which states as follows:
The WCJ found applicant's credible testimony of increasing workload and substantial medical evidence of worsening eye condition during employment supported further development of the record to address injury AOE/COE and temporary disability.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ16064041 · 2024-06-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the WCJ's alleged conduct at trial. Applicant argues that the WCJ has formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action and that the WCJ evinced enmity against or bias toward applicant.
The WCJ issued an unqualified opinion on the merits before submission, creating an appearance of prejudgment, warranting disqualification under CCP 641(f) and WCAB Rule 10960.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12335487 · 2024-03-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, as discussed in the WCJ's report, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, the petition will be denied.
The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641 to establish grounds for disqualification.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ16431629 · 2024-03-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On January 2, 2024, applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration contending, in essence, that the December 5, 2023 Order Imposing Sanctions and Costs issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). We have considered the allegations of the Petitions 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 for the reasons stated below, we will grant the petition for reconsideration and issue an order that applicant refile the petition as the current petition on file appears incomplete in EAMS. Furthermore, we will grant removal on motion of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) pursuant to Labor Code section 5310.
The Appeals Board found the petition for reconsideration meritorious to reopen the matter for further review and study, granting removal to the Board for further action.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13602393 · 2021-04-23 · Santa Ana 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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 petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
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.

BERNAL & ROBBINS
Bernal & Robbins
BERNAL & ROBBINS, 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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Bernal & Robbins

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

4 for the defense

1 returned for more record

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.

ADJ16251404 · 2025-09-05 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5The dispute here is whether the WCJ erred in finding applicant was not required to answer psychologically related questions. For the reasons detailed below, we conclude that in this case, the WCJ did not err because an allegation of headaches does not constitute a waiver of medical privacy regarding psychiatric care history.

The WCJ did not err because the applicant did not plead a psychiatric injury and thus did not waive her right to privacy regarding psychiatric history; defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal; discovery related to headaches may proceed separately.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ16431629 · 2024-06-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Labor Code section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the "reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, at p. 478), and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 475.)

The WCAB found the record insufficient to review the merits of the sanctions and determined that a hearing was necessary to create a record for proper adjudication, leading to rescission of the sanctions order and remand for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ9910901 · 2024-03-05 · Los Angeles District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814mixed

Determinative passage · p.4(Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 655] ("interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "); Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180 ("[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"); Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kramer), supra, 82 Cal.App.3d at p. 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 665] ("[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders").) Such interlocutory decisions include pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, and similar issues. Here a notice of intent issued, which is not a final order. Accordingly, reconsideration is not proper.

The WCJ's findings on sanctions and costs were rescinded due to insufficient evidence and the need for further record development; the notice of intent to impose sanctions was not removed as it was not a final order.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ15467286 · 2024-03-01 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 11, 2023 (decision), wherein the WCJ found that, on October 19, 2021, applicant "sustained injury to his right ankle while performing his job duties, and was not acting outside the scope of his job duties."

The WCAB found that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment despite conflicting testimony and credibility issues, as the injury occurred while performing job duties with a pallet jack, and defendant failed to prove the injury was due to horseplay or outside employment scope.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12431390 · 2023-12-21 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Pursuant to Section 5412: The date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment. (Lab. Code, § 5412.) As noted above, at the trial the parties stipulated that applicant's period of employment for Atkore International was during the period from November 2013, through January 2019. In order to determine the section 5412 date of injury, the date that applicant first suffered disability and knew that the disability was caused by his employment, must be established. Our review of the record indicates these dates have not been adequately established.

The WCJ did not adequately establish the Section 5412 date of injury or the Section 5500.5 date of injury, so the matter is remanded for further development and determination of these dates and liability.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11994133 · 2022-04-05 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

Determinative passage · p.7As indicated above, this WCJ does understand that applicant bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE but in light of the unrebutted and credible testimony of applicant's ever- increasing and unmanageable workload across county lines and substantial medical evidence documenting significant worsening of applicant's eye condition during applicant's employment with the employer herein, this WCJ exercised discretion to ensure substantial justice by ordering development of the record consistent with Labor Code § 3202, which states as follows:

The WCJ found applicant's credible testimony of increasing workload and substantial medical evidence of worsening eye condition during employment supported further development of the record to address injury AOE/COE and temporary disability.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ16064041 · 2024-06-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the WCJ's alleged conduct at trial. Applicant argues that the WCJ has formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action and that the WCJ evinced enmity against or bias toward applicant.

The WCJ issued an unqualified opinion on the merits before submission, creating an appearance of prejudgment, warranting disqualification under CCP 641(f) and WCAB Rule 10960.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12335487 · 2024-03-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, as discussed in the WCJ's report, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, the petition will be denied.

The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641 to establish grounds for disqualification.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ16431629 · 2024-03-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On January 2, 2024, applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration contending, in essence, that the December 5, 2023 Order Imposing Sanctions and Costs issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). We have considered the allegations of the Petitions 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 for the reasons stated below, we will grant the petition for reconsideration and issue an order that applicant refile the petition as the current petition on file appears incomplete in EAMS. Furthermore, we will grant removal on motion of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) pursuant to Labor Code section 5310.

The Appeals Board found the petition for reconsideration meritorious to reopen the matter for further review and study, granting removal to the Board for further action.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13602393 · 2021-04-23 · Santa Ana 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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 petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →