Law Offices of Tappin & Associates

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 3
• Anaheim 2
• Pomona 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Fresno 1
• Long Beach 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Oxnard 1
• Riverside 1
• San Bernardino 1
• San Francisco 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.

• 10 for the defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 16 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.

• ADJ13071035 · 2026-04-24 · San Francisco District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Substantial evidence supports my finding of a delay in medical treatment that gave rise to my assessment of penalties under Labor Code section 5814, attorneys' fees under Labor Code section 5814.5 and sanctions in the form of lien claimant's attorneys' fees. Labor Code section 5814 provides for a penalty for the unreasonable delay of compensation. Medical treatment is considered compensation, and a delay in its provision can give rise to a penalty under Labor Code section 5814. (See, Grubb & Ellis v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 807; Paula Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 820.)

  Defendant repeatedly denied payment for authorized medical care, violating Labor Code section 4610.3 and causing delay in compensation under Labor Code section 5814. The delay was egregious and harmed the applicant's medical care and recovery.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ13610807 · 2025-02-03 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3(1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313], emphasis added.) As discussed by the WCJ, applicant met her burden of proving injury AOE/COE, based in part on the opinions of panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) in cardiology Stuart Fischer, M.D. (Exhibits 1A - 1G) and panel QME in neurology Pedram Navab, M.D. (Exhibits 2A - 2H). Although the WCJ and both QMEs refer to "cardiac arrest" we note that this is not a body part. Additionally, we note that it is axiomatic that an injury must be to a body part and, as such, any finding of injury AOE/COE must identify at least one body part. (See Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 5401(a); Clark, supra, at 297-298.) Therefore we will amend Findings of Fact No. 1 and No. 2 to find that applicant sustained injury to her heart.

  The WCJ and QMEs Fischer and Navab provided substantial medical evidence that applicant's sudden cardiac arrest was industrially related, meeting the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and reasonable probability standard.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14075660 · 2024-07-12 · Oxnard District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Labor Code section 4610(i) applies to RFAs for treatment, whether made "prior to, retrospectively, or concurrent with the provisions of medical treatment services." (Lab. Code § 4610(i).) Under Labor Code section 4610(i)(3), "If the employee's condition is one in which the employee faces an imminent and serious threat to the employee's health..., or the normal timeframe for the decisionmaking process... would be detrimental to the employee's life or health or could jeopardize the employee's ability to regain maximum function, decisions to approve, modify, or deny requests by physicians prior to, or concurrent with, the provision of medical treatment services to employees shall be made in a timely fashion that is appropriate for the nature of the employee's condition, but not to exceed 72 hours after the receipt of the information reasonably necessary to make the determination." (Lab. Code § 4610(i)(3); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.9.1(e)(3).)

  The WCJ found the utilization review (UR) determinations untimely as they were not issued within 72 hours as required for the applicant's serious health condition, and the Appeals Board found no error in this finding.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ8671084 · 2024-05-31 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find merit in defendant's contention that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction over this dispute because its essence is the reasonable value of Dr. Nathan's services, not coding or the rectitude of defendant's EORs as suggested by the WCJ. We also conclude that it is appropriate to allow this matter to proceed to IBR. Accordingly, we will rescind the WCJ's decision and replace it with a decision reflecting the above conclusions.

  The WCAB found that the dispute was over the reasonable value of Dr. Nathan's services and thus subject to Independent Bill Review, not WCAB jurisdiction, rescinding the WCJ's decision.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12874580 · 2024-02-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9However, the issue identified as issue number 4 at trial, requesting an order that Casa Colina does not need to submit recurring RFAs, is denied without prejudice, because Casa Colina should be able to follow the law as explained in this opinion and the Patterson Significant Panel Decision, as long as that remains the law and until if and when there is a change of circumstances. To issue an ongoing order that no more RFAs are needed would deprive Casa Colina of the medical discretion to decide whether and when there has been a change in circumstances that alters its treatment recommendations. If defendants misapply the reasoning of this decision and Patterson to unilaterally terminate authorization of treatment at Casa Colina without evidence of a change in circumstances, applicant's counsel may request another expedited hearing to enforce applicant's rights under Patterson just the same as if the requested order, which is potentially problematic, were issued, Because this request for an order that RFAs are no longer necessary is denied without prejudice, defendant's objection to the issue (identified as issue number 8) is moot.

  The Board denied the request to eliminate recurring RFAs without prejudice, allowing Casa Colina to follow Patterson and submit RFAs only if a change in circumstances occurs.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ7325706 · 2023-12-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3On October 2, 2023, the undersigned WCJ issued his Findings of Fact & Order, finding that the WCAB did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the cost petitioner's petition due to his failure to submit the dispute to IMR. Aggrieved by this decision, the cost petitioner filed his petition for reconsideration.

  The WCJ found that the petitioner failed to submit the dispute to Independent Bill Review as required by law, thus the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute directly. The petitioner must first exhaust IMR before appealing to the WCAB.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12250535 · 2023-11-27 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5On September 6, 2023, this WCJ issued a Findings of Fact and Order and Opinion on Decision, wherein it was found, in pertinent part, that: (1) Dr. Halbridge has standing to Pursue the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute; (2) The Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute is not the correct remedy in this matter; and (3) Dr. Halbridge was required to request IBR before pursuing the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute. The Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute was denied via Order and it was noted that the remaining issues are moot.

  The WCJ and WCAB panel found that the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute was not the correct remedy because the petitioner failed to request Independent Bill Review (IBR) after a second bill review, which is mandatory under Labor Code 4603.3 and 4603.6. The defective Explanation of Review (EOR) did not excuse the petitioner from the IBR process. The petition was denied accordingly.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11231953 · 2023-06-05 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.29. Dr. Abri issued a December 16, 2019 panel QME report which included a discussion about causation based on findings of bruxism/parafunctional habit (clenching and grinding of teeth) secondary to stress and emotional factors, psychological factors, sleep disorder, xerostomia, and dry mouth.

  The Board found that Dr. Abri's report included causation findings despite defendants' cover letter restricting causation discussion, and that the medical/legal costs for Dr. Abri's report were properly incurred and should be paid.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ7841879 · 2022-09-28 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13In this case, the record shows that the parties stipulated in 2016 that it was reasonable and necessary for lien claimant to act as applicant's case manager, and defendant has presented no evidence demonstrating good cause for his removal. (Report, p. 2.) Specifically, as stated by the WCJ in the Report, the record (1) shows that Drs. Zehler, Miller, Patterson and Hoang have opined that lien claimant's services are reasonably necessary for applicant's treatment; (2) contains no evidence that lien claimant improperly performed any service or could be replaced by another case manager familiar with applicant's medical condition and symptomatology; and (3) reveals defendant is not prejudiced by lien claimant's ongoing service because it retains the right to timely object to any service or billing, including the timeliness thereof, it deems unreasonable. (Report, pp. 7-13.) Accordingly, we are unable to discern support for defendant's contention that the WCJ erroneously failed to find that lien claimant should be removed as agreed case manager.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that lien claimant Richard Dier's services as agreed case manager were reasonably necessary and that defendant failed to show good cause for removal, supported by medical opinions and lack of evidence of improper performance.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ11438423 · 2022-06-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and lien claimant Casa Colina seek reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 25, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a teacher on July 30, 2018, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his brain and head; (2) applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that Patterson v. The Oaks Farms, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910, applies to this matter; and (3) applicant's treatment requests must be in the form of requests for authorization (RFAs), which are subject to utilization review (UR) determinations and appealable only through independent medical review (IMR).

  The Board found that the applicant's RFAs sought continued inpatient treatment previously authorized and thus are not subject to UR without substantial medical evidence of a change in condition; the Board rescinded the WCJ's prior order and substituted findings in favor of the applicant for continued treatment until a change is established and a care plan agreed upon.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9011724 · 2021-09-01 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5DISCUSSION "The employer shall be liable for the cost of each reasonable and necessary comprehensive medical-legal evaluation obtained by the employee pursuant to Sections 4060, 4061, and 4062." (Lab. Code, § 4064(a).) Defendant sent letters to applicant objecting to an evaluation with a psychological panel QME. However, the record does not reflect that defendant advised Dr. Strada that it objected to her evaluation. In fact, the record shows that defendant sent an advocacy letter to Dr. Strada stating that she had "been appointed and chosen as the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner" prior to the appointment. (Cost Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, Defendant's Adversarial PQME Letter, August 8, 2016, p. 1.) There are also indications that defendant jointly provided her with records to review as part of her evaluation. (Id.) Defendant's November 1, 2016 letter to Dr. Strada regarding the late appointment fee incorrectly states that the parties were not notified of the missed appointment

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14904382 · 2025-04-11 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition 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 →

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.

• TAPPIN & ASSOCIATES
• Law Offices of Tappin & Associates
• LAW OFFICES OF TAPPIN & ASSOCIATES
• Tappin & Associates
• Tappin and Associates
• Tappin Associates

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.