Law Offices of O'Mara & Hampton

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• San Diego 10
• Riverside 3
• Pomona 2

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.

• 9 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record
• 2 for the defense

Counted over 15 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.

• ADJ10340076 · 2025-12-22 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.111. applicant, while employed during the period of January 23, 1999 to February 23, 2016, as an officer, Occupational Group Number 490, at Riverside County, California, by State of California Highway Patrol, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the right arm and right elbow.

  The WCAB found the reporting of PTP Dr. Maywood to be more well-reasoned and persuasive than the AME Dr. Chun's opinion, which was unpersuasive due to reliance on applicant's failure to report symptoms earlier and lack of explanation for nonindustrial causation; applicant's credible testimony and medical records supported injury AOE/COE to right arm and elbow.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ15018771 · 2025-03-14 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4II. Turning now to the merits of the Petition, defendant contends that applicant failed to meet his burden of proof pursuant to section 3202.5 in establishing injury AOE/COE to the shoulders, knees, and ankles as the reporting of Dr. Holmes "provides an inadequate medical history, is incomplete, and therefore is not substantial evidence." (Petition, pp. 2-3, 11.) Section 3202.5 states, in relevant part, that parties are to "meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence. Pursuant to section 5705, the burden of proof rests upon the party holding the affirmative of the issue. The burden therefore rests with the applicant (or lien claimant, who steps into the shoes of the applicant). To meet this burden, the applicant must provide substantial evidence of injury AOE/COE.

  The WCJ found Dr. Holmes's opinions to be substantial medical evidence based on an adequate examination, history, and reasoning, supported by other medical reports, meeting applicant's burden of proof for injury AOE/COE to the shoulders, knees, and ankles. Defendant failed to present contradictory evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ3642528 · 2024-04-08 · San Diego District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4lumber spine completely duplicate each other because they both involve the same limitation; i.e., applicant is limited to part-time, sedentary work. In order to avoid duplication of the disabilities, the work restriction to the lumbar spine shall be rated alone. (Schedule for Rating Permanent Disability, p. 1-10.) The rating of the applicant's permanent disability to the lumbar spine per the opinion of Dr. Wieseltier is as follows: 12.1-85-351 G-86=87%. Dr. Wieseltier opines 100% of the applicant's lumbar spine disability is due to her specific injury on February 1, 2002. (Joint Exhibit 9, p. 36; Joint Exhibit 27, p. 26:4-17.) Therefore, the permanent disability attributable to applicant's lumbar spine injury on February 1, 2002, is 87%.

  The WCJ and WCAB gave great weight to the agreed medical examiners' opinions, especially Dr. Wieseltier's extensive evaluations and reports, finding the applicant permanently and totally disabled with 100% disability rating, with 60% industrial apportionment based on substantial medical evidence from Dr. Addario and Dr. Bressler.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13285870 · 2024-01-19 · Riverside District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on October 26, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a Highway Patrol Officer from March 13, 1997, to May 13, 2020, sustained industrial injury to the low back, heart, hypertension, psyche, abdomen/groin (in the form of prostate cancer and urinary incontinence), hemorrhoids, hiatal hernia and GERD. The WCJ found that applicant sustained a prior industrial injury resulting in 66 percent permanent disability, and that the prior and current disabilities exceeded the 100 percent lifetime accumulative limit set forth in Labor Code1 section 4664(c)(1)(G). The WCJ reduced applicant's current disability levels to comply with the lifetime limit for that body region, then combined the resulting disability with the disability arising out of other body regions described in section 4664(c)(1), resulting in a net award of 43 percent disability.

  The WCJ and WCAB concluded that section 4664(c) imposes a lifetime cap on permanent disability awards by body region and is not an apportionment issue precluded by section 4663(e). The lifetime cap applies despite the presumptions for safety officers under section 4663(e).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9388767 · 2022-12-28 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Based upon applicant's credible testimony and the medical reports of Dr. Michael Kimball, M.D., Dr. Peter Hanson, M.D. and Dr. John Lane, M.D., various dates, it is found that applicant sustained injury to his left knee, right knee, right hip, neck and back arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period 2003 to and including January 20, 2017. The date of injury pursuant to Labor Code Section 5412 is discussed below. THERE IS ONLY ONE CONTINUOUS TRAUMA PERIOD

  The continuous trauma injury to left knee, right knee, right hip, neck, and back was found compensable with one continuous trauma period and the date of injury as April 1, 2014. Liability was placed on the petitioner as the sole carrier during the one-year period following the date of injury.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ1786046 · 2022-04-18 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6car accident actually occurred. Defendant apparently does not challenge this part of the WCJ's decision. However, in its petition for reconsideration (in contrast to its supplemental pleading) defendant asserts that 50% of any new and further orthopedic disability should be apportioned to the natural progression of the effects of the specific (cervical spine) injury of September 20, 1993. In support of this assertion, defendant relies upon the May 25, 2017 deposition testimony of Dr. Jackson, the AME in orthopedics. (Petition for Reconsideration, p. 12:3-20; Exhibit Y, pp. 28- 32.) However, we note that the Stipulated Award of July 15, 2002 included a stipulation that "[t]here is no permanent disability as a result of the 9/20/93 [cervical spine] claim." This stipulation long ago became final and binding, so it is unclear how defendant can prove apportionment based on the cervical spine injury dating back to 1993. (See Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

  The WCAB noted the stipulation that there was no permanent disability from the 1993 cervical spine injury and expressed no final opinion on orthopedic apportionment, remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11046834 · 2022-04-12 · San Diego District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order (F&A), dated February 7, 2020, served February 10, 2020, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a police officer from November 3, 2004 to September 11, 2017, sustained industrial injury to her low back, with the need for further medical care to cure or relive from the effects of the industrial injury. (F&A, p.4, Award No.1.) The WCJ made no specific findings regarding permanent disability or apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12014246 · 2021-12-10 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will affirm the F&O except that we will amend the F&O to find that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his lungs in the form of cancer, and resulting in his death on September 13, 2019 (Finding of Fact 1); that pursuant to Labor Code section 5412, the correct date of injury, in case number ADJ12638806, is June 11, 2018 (Finding of Fact 6); that applicant met the burden of proof to establish industrial causation of the lung cancer in case number ADJ12014246 (Finding of Fact 7); and that defendant did not rebut the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption of injury in case number ADJ12638806 (Finding of Fact 8). Based thereon, we will amend the Order to defer all other issues raised by the parties at the March 2, 2020 trial, and we will return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The WCAB found substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Jonathan the applicant that the lung cancer developed during the period covered by the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption and that the defendant did not rebut this presumption.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ9507174 · 2021-07-19 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, applicant claimed injury to his wrists as a result of "repetitive trauma on the job" on June 26, 2013 (the date of the ATV accident) and defendant stipulated the applicant sustained an injury on June 26, 2013. More importantly, as discussed above, Dr. Matan initially stated that applicant's bilateral wrist/nerve condition was caused by the June 26, 2013 ATV accident. (See e.g. Joint Exhs. 1, 2, and 4.) Subsequently, he explained why it was caused by more than 20 years of repetitive and cumulative trauma. (See Joint Exhs. 6 and 7.) At no time did he explain the apparent inconsistency in his stated opinions. Having reviewed the entire record, it is clear that applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE to his bilateral wrists but we are unable to determine whether applicant's condition is the result of a specific injury, a cumulative injury, or both. This is a threshold issue that must be determined and Dr. Matan's reports and deposition testimony do not constitute substantial evidence upon which the decision can be made.

  The medical evidence, particularly Dr. Matan's reports and deposition, was inconsistent and did not constitute substantial evidence to determine whether the injury was specific, cumulative, or both, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9261579 · 2021-04-29 · San Diego District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that the reports and deposition testimony of internal medicine qualified medical examiner (QME) Staley J. Majcher, M.D., are substantial evidence that applicant sustained 93% permanent disability as a result of the cumulative injury at issue herein.

  The WCJ's prior award of no increase in permanent disability was not supported by substantial evidence because the QME's opinion was based on an incorrect application of the timing for impairment rating; the WCAB remanded for further development and a new decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9507174 · 2021-05-05 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On February 16, 2021, defendant filed a Petition for Removal from the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)'s January 26, 2021 Minute Order setting this matter for trial. The matter was subsequently tried on March 2, 2021 and a decision issued on April 29, 2021. As a result, defendant's Petition for Removal has been rendered moot and will be dismissed.

  The petition was rendered moot by the trial and decision on the matter, so it was dismissed.

  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.

• O'MARA & HAMPTON
• LAW OFFICE OF O'MARA & HAMPTON
• O'MARA HAMPTON
• LAW OFFICES OF O'MARA AND HAMPTON
• Law Offices of O'Mara & Hampton
• Law Offices of O'Mara Hampton
• O'Mara & Hampton

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.