California WCABLaw firm

Hourigan, Holzman & Sprague, LLP

Hourigan, Holzman & Sprague, LLP is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2023. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (2), Jurisdiction / venue (1) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Santa Barbara, then Oxnard. The firm it meets most often is Tobin Lucks (3).

Decisions: 9
Years: 2021–2023
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 10 of 11 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

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Santa Barbara 5
Oxnard 3
San Luis Obispo 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.

6 for the defense
2 returned for more record
1 for the applicant

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ9163216 · 2022-03-14 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.41. the applicant, while employed during on May 20, 2013 as a mechanic, occupational group number 460, at Lompoc, California by Sousa Tire Service, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his bilateral arms, hands, shoulders, neck, psych and CRPS.
The panel found the WCJ erred in adding psychiatric permanent disability to orthopedic and CRPS disabilities instead of combining them using the Combined Values Chart, deferring the permanent disability rating for re-rating.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10557068 · 2021-11-23 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5The Appeals Board has jurisdiction to determine whether a UR decision is timely. (Dubon v. World Restoration, Inc. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298, 1299 (Appeals Board en banc) (Dubon II).) If a UR decision is untimely, the determination of medical necessity for the requested treatment may be made by the Appeals Board. (Id. at p. 1300.) However, "where a UR decision is timely, IMR is the sole vehicle for reviewing the UR physician's expert opinion regarding the medical necessity of a proposed treatment." (Id. at pp. 1310-1311; see also Lab. Code, § 4062(b), 4610.5; King v. CompPartners, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1039, 1048 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1523] [IMR "is the exclusive mechanism for review of a utilization review decision"].) "All other disputes regarding a UR decision must be resolved by IMR." (Dubon II, supra, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1299.)
The Appeals Board has jurisdiction only to determine whether a UR decision is timely. Since the UR decision was timely, the Appeals Board has no jurisdiction to address other disputes regarding the UR decision, which must be resolved through IMR.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ8555784 · 2023-12-22 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4resolve the issues discussed in our decision. Here, the essence of applicant's petition for removal is her complaint that the record should not be further developed because it will delay final resolution of her claim in ADJ9828972, resulting in significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Accordingly, we will evaluate the issues raised by applicant's petition under the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions, i.e., significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and that reconsideration remains an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12491402 · 2022-10-12 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Labor Code section 5502(e)(3) provides: "Discovery shall close on the date of the mandatory settlement conference. Evidence not disclosed or obtained thereafter shall not be admissible unless the proponent of the evidence can demonstrate that it was not available or could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence prior to the settlement conference."
The WCAB found that discovery should be closed at the MSC date per Labor Code section 5502(e)(3) and granted the petition for removal to close discovery and return the matter to trial level for trial setting.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ8111569 · 2021-12-10 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative Removal. Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the underlying order was an interlocutory order, not a final order determining substantive rights or a threshold issue. The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10862354 · 2021-10-15 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal or in the Alternative Reconsideration 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 discussed below, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.
The WCJ's July 28, 2021 Joint Order is an intermediate procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration is improper; removal is denied due to lack of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration being an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10614628 · 2021-09-16 · Santa Barbara Satellite OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petitions for Reconsideration of the decision issued on July 24, 2021 have been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, they will be dismissed.
Petitions for Reconsideration were withdrawn by petitioner and thus dismissed by the panel.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6938596 · 2021-05-11 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Preliminarily, Labor Code section 5909 provides that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within 60 days of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) However, "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. The Appeals Board did not act on applicant's petition because it had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Id. at p. 1108.)
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the underlying WCJ decision was not final, resolving only procedural or evidentiary issues. The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm 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.

HOURIGAN, HOLZMAN & SPRAGUE, LLP
HOURIGAN, HOLZMAN & SPRAGUE
HOURIGAN HOLZMAN AND SPRAGUE
HOURIGAN HOLZMAN & SPRAGUE
HOURIGAN HOLZMAN

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 →

Hourigan, Holzman & Sprague, LLP

Decisions

Years

2021–2023

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the defense

2 returned for more record

1 for the applicant

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ9163216 · 2022-03-14 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.41. the applicant, while employed during on May 20, 2013 as a mechanic, occupational group number 460, at Lompoc, California by Sousa Tire Service, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his bilateral arms, hands, shoulders, neck, psych and CRPS.

The panel found the WCJ erred in adding psychiatric permanent disability to orthopedic and CRPS disabilities instead of combining them using the Combined Values Chart, deferring the permanent disability rating for re-rating.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10557068 · 2021-11-23 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5The Appeals Board has jurisdiction to determine whether a UR decision is timely. (Dubon v. World Restoration, Inc. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298, 1299 (Appeals Board en banc) (Dubon II).) If a UR decision is untimely, the determination of medical necessity for the requested treatment may be made by the Appeals Board. (Id. at p. 1300.) However, "where a UR decision is timely, IMR is the sole vehicle for reviewing the UR physician's expert opinion regarding the medical necessity of a proposed treatment." (Id. at pp. 1310-1311; see also Lab. Code, § 4062(b), 4610.5; King v. CompPartners, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1039, 1048 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1523] [IMR "is the exclusive mechanism for review of a utilization review decision"].) "All other disputes regarding a UR decision must be resolved by IMR." (Dubon II, supra, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1299.)

The Appeals Board has jurisdiction only to determine whether a UR decision is timely. Since the UR decision was timely, the Appeals Board has no jurisdiction to address other disputes regarding the UR decision, which must be resolved through IMR.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ8555784 · 2023-12-22 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4resolve the issues discussed in our decision. Here, the essence of applicant's petition for removal is her complaint that the record should not be further developed because it will delay final resolution of her claim in ADJ9828972, resulting in significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Accordingly, we will evaluate the issues raised by applicant's petition under the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions, i.e., significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and that reconsideration remains an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12491402 · 2022-10-12 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Labor Code section 5502(e)(3) provides: "Discovery shall close on the date of the mandatory settlement conference. Evidence not disclosed or obtained thereafter shall not be admissible unless the proponent of the evidence can demonstrate that it was not available or could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence prior to the settlement conference."

The WCAB found that discovery should be closed at the MSC date per Labor Code section 5502(e)(3) and granted the petition for removal to close discovery and return the matter to trial level for trial setting.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ8111569 · 2021-12-10 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative Removal. Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the underlying order was an interlocutory order, not a final order determining substantive rights or a threshold issue. The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10862354 · 2021-10-15 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal or in the Alternative Reconsideration 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 discussed below, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.

The WCJ's July 28, 2021 Joint Order is an intermediate procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration is improper; removal is denied due to lack of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration being an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10614628 · 2021-09-16 · Santa Barbara Satellite OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petitions for Reconsideration of the decision issued on July 24, 2021 have been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, they will be dismissed.

Petitions for Reconsideration were withdrawn by petitioner and thus dismissed by the panel.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6938596 · 2021-05-11 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Preliminarily, Labor Code section 5909 provides that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within 60 days of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) However, "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. The Appeals Board did not act on applicant's petition because it had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Id. at p. 1108.)

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the underlying WCJ decision was not final, resolving only procedural or evidentiary issues. The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →