Law Office of David L. Hart

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• Jurisdiction / venue3
• Death benefits1
• Statute of limitations1

Where they appear

• San Francisco 5
• Oakland 3
• Redding 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.

• 4 for the applicant
• 3 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record

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.

• ADJ19403295 · 2026-06-08 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, the record is not fully developed and the WCJ's decision was not based on substantial evidence. We grant KForce's Petition as one seeking reconsideration, rescind the March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The WCJ's March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact on date of injury and statute of limitations were rescinded due to insufficient substantial evidence and incomplete record development.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ16306548 · 2026-04-27 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or removal of the Findings and Order with Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued on January 13, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed as an electrician by Taft Electric Company, per the filed application dated June 16, 2022, applicant claims to have sustained cumulative injury during the period November 12, 2020 through November 12, 2021, to his neck, back, and bilateral feet; (2) the claim was denied by Gallagher Bassett Services, and no benefits have been paid; (3) the NECA/IBEW Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program on its face is a valid ADR program that has been recognized and repeatedly authorized by the Administrative Director (AD) and holds prima facie jurisdiction over applicant's claim, and applicant has not proven that it fails to meet the requirements of Labor Code section 3201.5(b) or violates his right to a fair hearing.

  The WCAB lacks jurisdiction over the claim because the ADR program holds prima facie jurisdiction and the applicant did not seek review of the ADR closure, thus the WCAB cannot hear the claim except as an appeal from the ADR arbitrator's ruling.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19191631 · 2026-03-19 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Applicant's unrebutted credible testimony established that she worked for Avellino Labs USA. Avellino Labs USA was her employer at the time of injury. Defendants failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3357 presumption of employment. Defendants presented no evidence or witnesses on the issue. Whether or not applicant had a general and special employer at the time of injury is deferred. Applicant acknowledged being paid by Gava Talent Solutions.

  The WCJ found applicant was employed by Avellino based on credible testimony and evidence, and defendants failed to rebut the presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357. The Appeals Board affirmed this finding and amended the F&A to clarify the injury arose out of and in the course of employment under Labor Code section 3600.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ18432382 · 2026-03-05 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7In the instant matter, as noted in our prior December 1, 2025 O&O, Dr. Retodo completed an evaluation of the applicant on June 8, 2023, and reviewed extensive medical records in preparation for the drafting of his August 31, 2023 report. (Exhibit 1, pp. 1-2.) Within his report, Dr. Retodo noted that applicant "called her primary medical physician on the [the day of the February 1, 2023 injury] due to significant right shoulder pain" and also, per Dr. Retodo's summary, underwent an April 2, 2023 MRI study, wherein she was found to have "labral fraying and a supraspinatus tear injury[.]" (Id. at pp. 3, 13.) Orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Paul Abeyta therefore "recommended physical therapy and possible surgery to the right shoulder." (Ibid.) Ultimately, based upon his evaluation of applicant and review of medicals, Dr. Retodo concluded that applicant sustained a "[s]pecific industrial [sprain/strain] injury to the right shoulder [on] February 1, 2023[.]" (Id. at p. 12.)

  The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the right shoulder based on Dr. Retodo's report, applicant's deposition and trial testimony, and lack of rebuttal evidence from defendant.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ13090134 · 2025-08-14 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6The Findings of Fact issued on May 15, 2025, finding, in relevant part, that applicant was a joint employee of Paradies. (Finding of Fact, at p. 1, § 2.) The concurrently issued Opinion on Decision explains that the issue of joint employment was relevant because Zinder were uninsured for workers' compensation coverage at the time of the injury. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 26.) Focusing on the extent to which Paradies had the right to control applicant's behavior, the WCJ found that although Paradies had no direct communication with applicant, it exerted control over her through Zinder. (Id. at pp. 27§ 28.) The WCJ also found that the cleaning services provided

  The WCJ found Paradies Lagardere to be a joint employer based on control factors and rejected the business-to-business exception, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits and applicable law.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16306548 · 2025-02-10 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.) Here, the record reveals that the WCJ granted the Petition for Dismissal without holding a

  The WCJ granted dismissal without a hearing, violating due process and fair hearing rights under Labor Code and WCAB rules, so the order was rescinded and the matter returned for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9077087 · 2021-04-12 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or in the alternative removal of the Findings of Fact issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 5, 2021. By the Findings of Fact, the WCJ found that the Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to review the utilization review (UR) decisions or independent medical review (IMR) determinations at issue.

  The Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to review the UR and IMR decisions because the applicant did not dispute the timeliness of the UR decisions or appeal the IMR determinations as required by Labor Code section 4610.6(h).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10126914 · 2021-03-08 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration seeks an order reversing the Finding of Fact that the Applicant has not rebutted the schedule rating and an award of permanent and total disability. As the Applicant has not sought reconsideration on the Findings that the Applicant failed to demonstrate industrial injury to the lumbar spine, that determination is considered final. (See: Labor Code section 5904.) The Applicant's petition incorrectly asserts the undersigned failed to evaluate the vocational and testimonial evidence presented by the Applicant and provides no statutory, regulatory or case law authority to support the assertions made. As the Applicant's assertions at trial and on Reconsideration are based entirely on the Applicant's subjective complaints without any medical support the undersigned recommends Reconsideration be denied.

  The Applicant's petition failed to cite specific record evidence, relied on subjective complaints without medical support, and misrepresented the findings; the WCJ's report was adopted and the petition denied.

  Official decision · page 4 →

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.

• LAW OFFICE OF DAVID L. HART
• LAW OFFICES OF DAVID L. HART
• Law Office of David L. Hart
• Law Office of David Hart
• David L. Hart

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.