Parker Irwin

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 7
• Riverside 5
• San Diego 3
• Santa Ana 2
• Anaheim 1
• Long Beach 1
• Pomona 1
• San Bernardino 1
• Santa Barbara 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.

• 11 for the defense
• 7 returned for more record
• 6 for the applicant

Counted over 22 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.

• ADJ15346443 · 2026-06-12 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award (F&A) issued on March 6, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained industrial injury during the cumulative trauma period from September 1, 2010, through January 14, 2023, to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral elbows, bilateral wrists, bilateral feet, heart, psyche, and in the forms of tinnitus, headaches, and sleep disorder. (ADJ17509439)1 The WCJ further found that applicant sustained an injury to his psyche on January 13, 2023 (ADJ17190195), and a separate injury on July 16, 2020, to his right shoulder, right elbow, left thumb, and bilateral knees (ADJ15346443). With respect to the cumulative injury, the WCJ found that applicant sustained 87% permanent disability. The WCJ also determined that "Kite" did not apply and the medical evidence did not support it.

  The WCJ rejected addition of impairments due to insufficient evidence of synergy and failure to meet the Vigil standard, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficient and remanded for further development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11306542 · 2026-04-20 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The WCA issued a Report dated February 10, 2026; however, filing of the arbitration file in EAMS was never completed as required by WCAB Rules 10914 and 10995, because the existing record does not contain a transcript of proceedings, Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, or any other record of the stipulations and issues entered into by the parties, nor any summary of the testimony presented at the arbitration trial. The Appeals Board may not ignore due process for the sake of expediency. (Barri v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 428, 469 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1643] [claimants in workers' compensation proceedings are not denied due process when proceedings are delayed in order to ensure compliance with the mandate to accomplish substantial justice]; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases

  The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking required minutes and summaries, making meaningful review impossible, thus rescinding the F&O and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ18997271 · 2026-01-12 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7disability; 2. Need for further medical treatment; and 3. Attorney fees. (Amended Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), August 25, 2025 trial, p. 2.) The parties stipulated that during the period of January 1, 2023 through February 23, 2024, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head and in the form of COVID-19.

  The Appeals Board found the medical evidence insufficient and not substantial to deny permanent disability; the matter was returned for further development and proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ17092437 · 2025-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6reports of Dr. Kharrazi, Dr. Purcell, Dr. Kropf, Dr. Lebow, and the post-trial briefing of the parties, it is found that Applicant has not yet reached Maximum Medical Improvement." (11/14/24 Opinion, p. 3.) However, the WCJ did not point to any specific evidence or testimony to support this finding. Instead, QME Dr. Purcell found that applicant had reached MMI. (Jt. Ex. A, p. 23; Jt. Ex. C, p. 3.) The medical evidence and applicant's testimony do not provide substantial evidence otherwise. Thus, the finding regarding MMI and temporary disability benefits must be rescinded. As there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the finding regarding MMI and therefore the provision of temporary disability benefits, the attorney's fees based on this finding must be rescinded as well.

  The WCJ's finding that applicant had not reached MMI and was entitled to retroactive temporary disability benefits was not supported by substantial evidence. QME Dr. Purcell found applicant had reached MMI, and the WCJ did not point to specific evidence to support a contrary finding. The finding and related attorney's fees were rescinded and the matter remanded.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ15875626 · 2025-06-30 · Riverside District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In the instant matter, Dr. Simpkins indicated that for the cervical spine, he would apportion "25% of the current level of impairment to the presence of age-related degeneration, 20% of the current level of impairment to preexisting injury, and 55% of the current level of impairment to the direct result of the injuries arising out of and occurring in the course of her employment on a continuous trauma basis." (Exhibit 1, p. 20.) Dr. Simpkins explained that "available diagnostic studies reveal[ed] moderate to severe spondylosis" and that "at least two MVAs" resulted in "injury to the cervical spine[.]" (Ibid.) Reference to the specific dates and findings of the alleged studies were not indicated. Specifics regarding the dates of the MVAs and corresponding injuries and diagnoses were also not provided.

  The WCJ found Dr. Simpkins's apportionment opinion conclusory and lacking detailed reasoning as required by Escobedo and Yeager, thus not substantial evidence; the Appeals Board denied reconsideration affirming this finding.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16333606 · 2025-05-19 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 20, 2025, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) of Valley Fever or lungs and ordered that applicant take nothing by way of the claim filed.

  Applicant contends entitlement to the presumption of injury AOE/COE under Labor Code section 3212 as a police officer, which the WCAB preliminarily agrees applies, but the WCJ applied section 3212.10. The case is remanded for further review of the presumption and rebuttal evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12139553 · 2024-04-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813remanded

  Determinative passage · p.3DISCUSSION The Appeals Board has exclusive jurisdiction over fees to be allowed or paid to applicants' attorneys. (Vierra v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 (Vierra).) In calculating attorney's fees, our basic statutory command is that the fees awarded must be "reasonable." (Lab. Code, § 4903, 4906(a) & (d).) Pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4906, in determining what constitutes a "reasonable" attorney's fee, the Board must consider four factors: (1) the responsibility assumed by the attorney; (2) the care exercised in representing the applicant; (3) the time involved; and (4) the results obtained by the attorney. (Lab. Code, § 4906(d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10844.) Although not binding, WCAB/DIR Policy & Procedure Manual, section 1.140 also provides guidance in our analysis of this matter.

  The WCJ's basis for awarding 12% attorney fees was not stated, so the WCAB deferred the issue for further proceedings to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ808475 · 2023-08-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Petitioner argues that due process requires a full development of the record in all worker's compensation cases. The Court agrees. However, the question of whether the requirements of 8 C.C.R. 9767.9 have been met required neither additional discovery nor further development of the record. The evidence submitted at trial justified the granting of defendant's Petition; applicant admitted to receiving the transfer of care notices, Dr. Holmes objected to the transfer, and defendant delayed the transfer in accordance with Dr. Holmes' objection well beyond the time that it was required to do so. Defendant's transfer of care notices complied with both 8 C.C.R. 9767.9 and 8 C.C.R. 9767.12. The record contained no obvious deficiencies warranting supplementation.

  Defendant complied with the regulatory requirements for transfer to MPN, provided proper notice, and applicant received additional time for treatment outside the MPN due to a serious chronic condition. No evidence showed defendant lost medical control or failed to comply with notice requirements.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ6604551 · 2022-09-12 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Petitioner fails to recognize that parties jointly agreed to utilize an Agreed Medical Examiner. It is the AME, Dr. Sofia who is silent on this matter. In fact, every medical report offered is silent as to Kite. In Kite, the WCJ relied upon the opinion of a qualified medical evaluator who found there was a "synergistic effect" of the injury to the bilateral hips versus body parts from different regions. Unlike the QME in Kite, Dr. Sofia provided an impairment and states "I believe the above impairments are accurate and reasonable per the Almaraz-Guzman decision" (Jnt Ex W, pg 10). Dr. Sofia offered no discussion indicating Kite applied. It is well known that the determination as to whether the final permanent disability is rated using the combined values chart versus the addition, is based upon the medical evidence. As in Kite, impairments may be added if substantial medical evidence supports the physician's opinion that adding them will result in a more accurate rating. In this instance, Dr. Sofia did not provide a Kite analysis and was clear that the rating provided was "accurate and reasonable". Even the prior AME, Dr. Zarins provided a strict rating and did not offer a Kite analysis. Therefore, there is no basis to support Petitioner's contention of a "Kite Application".

  No substantial medical evidence supported addition method; AME did not provide Kite analysis.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ8734121 · 2022-07-19 · Anaheim District OfficeApportionmentdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.8Although we are deferring issues of permanent disability and apportionment, we note that to be substantial evidence on the issue of the approximate percentages of permanent disability due to the direct results of the injury and the approximate percentage of permanent disability due to other factors, a medical opinion must 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. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 [2005 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 71] (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Further, a medical report is not substantial evidence unless it sets forth the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions. (Granado v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 69 Cal.2d 399, 407 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647] (a mere legal conclusion does not furnish a basis for a finding); Zemke v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 794, 799-801 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 358] (an opinion that fails to disclose its underlying basis and gives a bare legal conclusion does not constitute substantial evidence).) Thus, while we express no opinion as to the validity of the apportionment on the record before us, we note that valid apportionment must reflect the principles espoused above.

  The Board deferred the issue of apportionment pending further development of the record, noting that valid apportionment must be based on substantial evidence and reasonable medical probability, not speculation.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11317555 · 2022-03-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5In this matter, we are not persuaded that the Findings of Fact and Order is adequately

  The WCAB found the prior Findings and Order inadequately supported because the QME did not parse individual factors of causation or assign percentages as required by Rolda analysis, necessitating further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11922456 · 2021-03-01 · San Diego District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2AME Dr. Bressler evaluated applicant on April 10, 2019. Dr. Bressler examined applicant, took a history, and reviewed the medical record. (Joint Exh. 1, Dr. Bressler, April 23, 2019.) He diagnosed applicant as having GERD and stated that applicant's condition was permanent and stationary. (Joint Exh. 1, p. 8.) Regarding the cause of applicant's whole person impairment and apportionment of his disability, Dr. Bressler stated:

  Dr. Bressler's apportionment opinion was found not to be substantial evidence because it lacked explanation and reasoning for the apportionment percentages and method used. Additionally, the statutory presumption under Labor Code 3212 for police officers' hernia injuries precluded apportionment to non-industrial factors. Therefore, defendant did not meet its burden of proof on apportionment and the permanent disability was increased to 20%.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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 PARKER & IRWIN
• PARKER & IRWIN
• Parker Irwin
• LAW OFFICES OF PARKER & IRWIN, APC
• Law Offices of Parker & Irwin
• PARKER IRWIN LAW FIRM
• PARKER AND IRWIN
• PARKER IRWIN LAW
• Parker and Irwin
• Parker & Irwin
• PARKER IRWIN

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.