California WCABLaw firm
Law Offices of Richard K. Green
Law Offices of Richard K. Green is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Psyche AOE/COE (2) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Santa Rosa.
- Decisions
- 11
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 7
- District offices
- 3
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 11 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.
- ADJ9425810 · 2026-02-03 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.15However, this analysis misconstrues the compensability requirements under section 3208.3 with respect to a claim of psychiatric injury. Section 3208.3(b)(1) requires the applicant "demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1).) Here, there is no dispute that the QME has opined that 60 percent of applicant's psychiatric injury was caused by actual events of employment. (Ex. R, Report of Boukje Eerkens, Psy.D., dated May 23, 2017, at p. 2.) Thus, applicant's claim of psychiatric injury meets the predominance requirements of section 3208.3(b)(1).
The QME opined that 60% of the psychiatric injury was caused by actual events of employment, meeting the predominance requirement under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1). The employer failed to prove that good-faith personnel action was a substantial cause of the injury under section 3208.3(h).
Official decision · page 15 → - ADJ12730898 · 2024-08-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Defendant produced insufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof as to the initial
Defendant failed to prove applicant was the initial physical aggressor; coworker did not testify and witness testimony was limited and uncertain; injury is industrial and presumptively accepted due to untimely denial by defendant.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ11269850 · 2023-08-04 · Santa Rosa District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3However, where the applicant is claiming workers' compensation against a "tribally affiliated entity," as here, the burden is on the tribal entity to establish that it enjoys the same sovereign immunity as the Native American tribe itself, pursuant to a five-factor test. In Miami, the California Supreme Court summarized this burden and the five-factor test as follows:
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ9425810 · 2022-01-14 · Oakland District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we affirm the F&O except that we amend the F&O to defer the issue of
The Appeals Board deferred the issue of compensability of the psychiatric injury claim under Labor Code section 3208.3 to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine if the claimed psychiatric injury was caused by good faith personnel actions and to apply the four-step Rolda analysis.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ13620994 · 2021-06-28 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Defendant's delay in responding to applicant's single September 21, 2020 letter asking to treat with NMCI is not substantial evidence of a neglect or refusal to provide treatment such that applicant may treat outside the MPN. There is therefore insufficient evidence in the record to find entitlement to treatment outside the MPN at defendant's expense. (See Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc) [decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record"]; see also Knight, supra.)
Applicant failed to prove that defendant's delay in responding to his request constituted a neglect or refusal to provide treatment; no evidence of efforts to obtain treatment after the request; AD Rule 9767.5(g) did not apply as there was no referral to a specialist or request for MAA assistance.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ10571459 · 2021-03-04 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2For the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we agree that the opinion of Dr. Mirza is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied. To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion "must be predicated on reasonable medical probability." (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70
The WCAB found the primary treating physician Dr. Mirza's report constituted substantial medical evidence and properly supported the 38% permanent disability rating, rejecting the PQME Dr. Campbell's report due to incomplete history and inadequate analysis of activities of daily living per AMA Guides.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ13909512 · 2026-03-17 · San Francisco District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11Ultimately, when weighing the privacy rights here, SISF did not provide an adequate basis for proving that the contested documents are relevant or will lead to relevant evidence. As such, we will grant the Petition as one for Reconsideration, rescind the F&O and substitute an order denying the Petition to Compel.
The WCAB found that SISF did not provide an adequate basis for proving the contested settlement documents were relevant or would lead to relevant evidence, and that the petition to compel should be denied to protect privacy rights.
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ2513477 · 2022-10-12 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, has filed correspondence dated September 12, 2022 in response to our September 6, 2022 Opinion and Order Dismissing Petitions for Reconsideration and Dismissing Petition for Removal (Decision). We treat this correspondence as a Petition for Removal from our September 12, 2022 Decision. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the petition.
The Appeals Board will not entertain a successive petition by a party who failed to prevail on a prior petition unless the party is newly aggrieved.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ2513477 · 2022-09-06 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, has filed multiple documents in this matter: a Petition for Removal on June 7, 2022; a Petition for Reconsideration on July 5, 2022, a Petition for Reconsideration on July 7, 2022; and correspondence addressed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on July 8, 2022, July 15, 2022, July 20, 2022, August 4, 2022, and August 11, 2022. We will treat the correspondence as Petitions for Reconsideration.1
The petitions for reconsideration were dismissed because they were not taken from a final order or decision, and the petition for removal was dismissed for lack of grounds and failure to state material evidence.
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.
- LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD GREEN
- Law Offices of Richard K. Green
- LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD K. GREEN
- THE LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD K. GREEN, A.P.C.
- Law Offices of Richard Green
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.