Murphy & Beane

What they litigate

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

• Apportionment1
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Statute of limitations1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Long Beach 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Van Nuys 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.

• 5 for the applicant
• 2 for the defense

Counted over 7 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.

• ADJ9081819 · 2025-07-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.72. The Determination Regarding Apportionment of Permanent Disability Is Correctly Based on the Cause of Disability.

  The surgery was the sole cause of the current disability and no apportionment is merited under current law, as supported by the medical opinions and legal precedent.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ9082985 · 2024-05-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Order (F&O) issued on May 30, 2019, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from July 1, 1965 to July 1, 1975 claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his head, vision, jaw, neck, back, shoulders, elbows, wrist, hands, fingers, hips, knees, ankles, feet, toes, neuro/psyche, internal, cardiovascular, heart, hypertension, sleep, and injuries resulting in his death. The WCJ found that applicant's employment contracts were entered into outside the State of California, and that California does not have a legitimate and substantial interest in applicant's claim sufficient to compel defendant to adjudicate the claim under the laws of California.

  The WCJ found no California contract of hire and insufficient contacts between the injury and California to justify jurisdiction, supported by substantial evidence including applicant's deposition and medical reports.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2649256 · 2023-08-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.64 While UEBTF makes this argument for policy reasons, the undersigned finds the analysis to be similar. 5 The period within which proceedings may be commenced for the collection of the benefits provided by Article 2 (commencing with Section 4600) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 4650), or both, of Chapter 2 of Part 2 is one year from any of the following: (a)The date of injury. (b)The expiration of any period covered by payment under Article 3 (commencing with Section 4650) of Chapter 2 of Part 2. (c)The last date on which any benefits provided for in Article 2 (commencing with Section 4600) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 were furnished.

  Applicant did not know and could not reasonably have known of SIBTF liability within five years of injury date; applicant filed claim within reasonable time after learning of probable liability; petition for reconsideration denying time bar was properly denied.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ555322 · 2023-01-23 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The WCJ found that Applicant was entitled to a retroactive increase to his temporary disability indemnity and the payment of this retroactive increase should be paid pursuant to Labor Code Section 4661.5. The last date of injury at issue is 1997. Defendant's first argument disputes the method of calculating that retroactive rate contending that Labor Code Section 4453 (c) (1) should be utilized rather than the section relied upon by the WCJ in her decision, Section 4453 (c) (4) and (d). To be clear, there was no evidence whatsoever presented at trial as to how Applicant's previous temporary disability was calculated. The only issue presented at trial was whether or not Applicant was entitled to an increased temporary disability rate pursuant to Labor Code Section 4661.51 and the Hofmeister decision.

  The WCJ found the method of calculating the retroactive increase in temporary disability payments using Labor Code Section 4453(c)(4) and (d) was reasonable and fair based on credible and unrebutted testimony, and that the wage increases were scheduled and reasonably anticipated at the time of injury.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ18454068 · 2025-11-06 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on August 13, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was issued without creating a record or explaining the need for further development, violating due process and causing irreparable harm; removal was proper to allow record creation and protect due process rights.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2186885 · 2025-10-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant1 has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on August 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ deferred applicant's request for an election.

  The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining the need for further development violated due process, constituting irreparable harm, thus removal was proper.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11775765 · 2021-06-02 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.

  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.

• MURPHY BEANE LAW
• Murphy & Beane
• LAW OFFICES OF MURPHY AND BEANE
• MURPHY BEANE LAW CULVER CITY
• MURPHY BEANE McKERNAN APC
• MURPHY AND BEANE

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.