Boxer & Gerson

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Oakland 54
• San Francisco 2
• San Jose 2
• Lodi 1
• Sacramento 1
• Santa Rosa 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.

• 33 for the applicant
• 18 for the defense
• 8 returned for more record

Counted over 56 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.

• ADJ13531096 · 2026-08-31 · San Francisco District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Because there is not support in the evidence that the removal of CABA led to the applicant's October 30, 2019 injury, there also cannot be knowledge on the part of Anthony Hodges that removal of would lead to the applicant's injury. * * * In this matter, I am not persuaded that the failure to remove Craig from Hodges Residential constitutes an intentional act with knowledge that serious injury was probable... I do not find that the mere presence of Craig in the home created an unsafe work environment. Additionally, I am persuaded that Anthony Hodges was taking reasonable steps to try to alleviate the danger posed by Craig. * * * Therefore, I do not find that the failure to remove Craig from Hodges Residential constitutes serious and willful misconduct by Hodges Residential. * * * For the reasons discussed above, I do not find that the applicant has met his burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Hodges Residential committed serious and willful misconduct in relation to the applicant’s October 30, 2019 injury. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 15-19.) It is from this F&O that applicant seeks reconsideration.

  Applicant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant committed serious and willful misconduct causing the injury. The evidence showed defendant took reasonable steps to manage the dangerous resident and did not act with knowledge that serious injury was probable.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ20868523 · 2026-08-17 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision (FA&O) issued on May 14, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the FA&O, as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed by defendant on March 25, 2025 as a Transit Operator, Occupational Group Number 250, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his right elbow, right wrist, and right hand. The issue of injury to the psyche required development and was deferred. Defendant contends in relevant part that the WCJ denied defendant due process by taking trial testimony without a court reporter, then ordering the testimony to be retaken, and exercising an excess of power by asking the parties to appear the next business day to review video evidence; and that the decision is not based on substantial evidence. We received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our preliminary review of the record, we will grant defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration and we will issue a notice of intention and order defendant to file Joint Exhibit

  The WCJ found injury to right elbow, wrist, and hand arising out of and in the course of employment. The issue of injury to psyche was deferred. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review video evidence relevant to the injury circumstances.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16000363 · 2026-07-29 · Oakland District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132amixed

  Determinative passage · p.8For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that reconsideration of the decision of April 22, 2026 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the decision of April 22, 2026 is AFFIRMED, except that it is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the TTD and PTD rates to reflect the 2022 statutory maximum rates for PTD fixed as of the date of injury and TTD payable at rates in effect at the time of payment, consistent with Labor Code provisions.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ8427517 · 2026-07-15 · Lodi District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the “Findings of Fact, Orders, and Opinion on Decision” (F&O) issued on March 3, 2023, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), in order to further study the factual and legal issues. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, in pro per, was not entitled to an additional and/or replacement panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) in the specialty of internal medicine. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because the reporting of the agreed medical evaluator (AME) does not constitute substantial evidence and that further development of the record with the current AME is not warranted. We have received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, as our Decision After Reconsideration we will rescind the March 3, 2023 F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  The WCJ found applicant was not entitled to an additional or replacement QME in internal medicine, but the Appeals Board rescinded that decision and returned the matter for further proceedings because the issue was not properly analyzed and further development of the record was warranted.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16112682 · 2026-05-19 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ's opinion found that apportionment was not appropriately addressed per the standards outlined in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 611 (en banc) because the physician did not clearly outline the pre-existing conditions nor did he adequately address with particularity how those conditions caused the current impairment. He accepted the QME's opinion that the impairment to the right and left shoulder should be added instead of combined. The WCJ also found that the correct occupational code is 330 based on the job description provided (Defendant's Exhibit A.)

  The WCJ found that the QME Dr. Hughes did not adequately explain the apportionment of pre-existing conditions to the current impairment as required by Escobedo, and thus rejected the apportionment and rated permanent disability at 76% without apportionment based on Dr. Reiter's opinion.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10715566 · 2026-03-19 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings & Award (F&A) issued on September 13, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial injury while employed by defendant on March 19, 2014 to her low back, resulting in 51% permanent disability.

  The WCAB found that the vocational expert opinion supporting 100% permanent disability was substantial evidence, while the apportionment opinion of PQME Dr. Anderson was speculative and legally insufficient, leading to an amendment of the permanent disability rating to 100%.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17517591 · 2026-03-03 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of November 14, 2025, wherein it was found that while employed on June 26, 2021 as a handyman, applicant sustained industrial injury to his right knee, right leg, left hip, and low back causing permanent total (100%) disability. as a maintenance technician, applicant sustained industrial injury to the right hand, right arm, and psyche, causing permanent total (100%) disability. In finding permanent total disability, the WCJ relied on the reporting of vocational expert Frank P. Diaz, who opined that applicant's industrial injury precluded applicant from vocational rehabilitation or from employment in the open labor market.

  The WCJ's findings of permanent total disability were supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Anderson and vocational expert Frank Diaz, whose reports were found credible and compliant with regulatory requirements. Defendant's due process argument for a rebuttal vocational report was rejected as untimely and unsupported.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19436133 · 2025-10-06 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, PQME Dr. Konovalenko credibly found the "cause of the applicant's current injuries, impairments and disabilities to the neck are attributable to the cumulative industrial injury which occurred from 2020 through June 18, 2024. The described mechanism of injury is consistent with an appropriate force to result in the above listed industrial diagnoses." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 19.) "The applicant has not reached maximal medical improvement and is not yet permanent and stationary for any injury being evaluated." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.) "The applicant's work status is hereafter deferred to the primary treating physician until he has reached maximum medical improvement." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.)

  PQME Dr. Konovalenko's well-reasoned medical opinion diagnosing myofascial pain syndrome and attributing the injury to cumulative industrial trauma was substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the neck.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ8034870 · 2025-06-17 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&A and substitute findings that defer the issues of whether applicant sustained injury to the psyche, the amount of permanent disability, and attorney's fees; and we will return the matter to the trial level further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The permanent disability rating and apportionment issues were deferred pending further proceedings due to incomplete record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14547470 · 2025-04-17 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The matter thereafter stood submitted, and on January 13, 2021, the WCA issued his Opinion and Order finding that applicant was not entitled to an examination with a QME specializing in either the field of orthopedic or occupational medicine.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCA erred in denying the applicant a QME examination based on the ADR rules, as the rules do not abrogate the WCA's authority to appoint a medical examiner and due process requires a meaningful consideration of the merits.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13108823 · 2025-03-10 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 26, 2024, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the head, neck, right shoulder, right knee, or psychiatric injury, and that the reporting by Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Peter J. Mandell, M.D., is not substantial medical evidence. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her workers' compensation claim.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's initial rejection of the AME's medical opinion was not supported by substantial evidence and that further development of the medical record was necessary to determine industrial causation. The WCAB granted reconsideration and returned the matter for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17318401 · 2025-03-04 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, as stated by the WCJ in the Report, the finding of injury to the neck, spine, and bilateral shoulders in the F&A is based upon applicant's testimony as to how the injury occurred and the fact that she sought emergency room treatment immediately. (Report, p. 5.) Under the foregoing authorities, however, substantial medical evidence is required to establish injury AOE/COE. Therefore, we will evaluate QME Dr. Patel's reporting to determine whether the injury finding is supported by substantial medical evidence.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's injury finding was based on applicant's testimony and immediate emergency room treatment, but substantial medical evidence was required. Dr. Patel's reports were reviewed and found to be based on pertinent facts and adequate examination but unclear as to adequate medical history, partly due to defendant restricting medical records review. The Board concluded further development of the record was necessary to determine if Dr. Patel's opinion was based on adequate medical history.

  Official decision · page 8 →

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.

• BOXER & GERSON
• Boxer & Gerson
• BOXER & GERSON, LLP
• BOXER GERSON
• Boxer & Gerson, LLP
• Boxer Gerson Olson Oakland
• BOXER GERSON OAKLAND
• BOXER & GERSON LLP
• Boxer Gerson

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.