California WCABLaw firm

Boehm & Associates

Boehm & Associates is named in 22 released California WCAB decisions from 2019–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (4), AOE/COE (3) and Permanent disability rating (3). They were heard most often at San Bernardino, then San Francisco. The firm it meets most often is Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone (3).

Decisions: 22
Years: 2019–2026
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 13

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 12 of 14 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

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

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

17 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

10 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

San Bernardino 3
San Francisco 3
Eureka 2
Los Angeles 2
San Diego 2
San Jose 2
Santa Ana 2
Anaheim 1
Long Beach 1
Redding 1
Riverside 1
Sacramento 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 applicant
6 for the defense
3 returned for more record

Counted over 19 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.

ADJ8775554 · 2026-04-20 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on January 12, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the Findings, as relevant here, the WCJ found that though applicant was found to be defendant's employee, applicant did not meet his burden of proving injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). As a result, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing in connection with his Application for Adjudication.
Applicant provided unrebutted testimony and medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE; WCJ erred in disbelieving applicant's testimony and placing disproportionate weight on EDD form; absence of contrary evidence from defendant; injury found compensable by preponderance of evidence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10774716 · 2025-09-02 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 2, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment in the form of a stroke and to the psyche; that applicant's injury has resulted in permanent total disability; and that defendant has not met its burden of proof with regard to non-industrial apportionment.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the QME's apportionment opinion was not substantial evidence because it apportioned to causation of injury (stroke) rather than causation of disability, and did not explain how risk factors caused the disability. Therefore, the award of 100% permanent total disability without apportionment was upheld.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11323598 · 2024-05-28 · Eureka District OfficeLiensmixed
Determinative passage · p.1Petitioner 4600 Boehm on behalf of lien claimant Anthem Blue Cross (Anthem), filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Joint Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 29, 2023.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in limiting the reimbursement period and approved a stipulation resolving the lien for a reduced amount, rescinding the prior WCJ decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10504110 · 2023-09-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuenot_reached
Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ issued the order2 joining the Mets 15 days after the filing of the petition for joinder, without providing the parties with notice of intention under rule 10832 or setting the matter for further hearing, and accordingly, there is an insufficient basis upon which to evaluate the issues raised in the Mets' Petition. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.)
There was no evidentiary record or notice of intention before the order joining the Mets as party defendant, so the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed as premature and the matter is returned for further proceedings to create a record.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10767201 · 2023-09-01 · San Diego District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Defendant contends that applicant's claim was barred by the one year statute of limitations to apply for workers' compensation benefits pursuant to Labor Code section 5405. The three points designated in section 5405 as the start of the one year period are: date of injury; the last payment of disability indemnity; and the last date on which medical treatment benefits were furnished. (Lab. Code, § 5405(a)-(c).) The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and therefore, the burden of proof rests with defendant. (Lab. Code, § 5409, 5705.) According to defendant, applicant filed his claim form beyond the one year statute of limitations and therefore his claim is barred. (Petition, p. 4.)
The statute of limitations was tolled because defendant breached its duty to notify applicant of workers' compensation rights, and applicant was prejudiced by the breach as he was unaware of his rights until later.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10774716 · 2023-02-10 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.14Temporary disability is not defined by statute but is considered a temporary impairment that will improve over time, once the injured worker has been given appropriate medical treatment to resolve his or her condition. Total Temporary Disability (TTD) payments are intended to be a temporary wage replacement during applicant's period of recovery. Once the injured worker has plateaued, and there is no expectation that his or her condition will improve with further medical treatment, the applicant is considered permanent and stationary and no longer entitled to TTD payments. (See Western Growers Ins. Co, v. WCAB (Austin) (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 227, 236 [58 Cal Comp Cases 323].) Applicant's claim that she is entitled to TTD from 12/30/2016 to 7/5/2017 as a result of her industrial injury is supported by the substantial medical evidence in this case, the exact amounts of which are to be adjusted by the parties with WCAB jurisdiction reserved in the event the parties are not able to resolve the issue amongst themselves, less 15% applicant attorney's fee of the TTD awarded.
Substantial medical evidence supports applicant's entitlement to temporary disability for the specified period, with amounts to be adjusted by parties and WCAB jurisdiction reserved if unresolved.
Official decision · page 14 →
ADJ12932864 · 2022-09-19 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of June 24, 2022, wherein we found that while employed as a correctional officer during a cumulative period ending on June 6, 2017, applicant sustained industrial injury to his heart and in the form of hypertension causing permanent disability of 54%. In so finding, we amended a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of March 29, 2022, wherein it was found that applicant's injury had caused permanent disability of 29% after Labor Code section 4663 apportionment of permanent disability.
The Board found that the applicant's heart trouble developed during his service, making the heart trouble presumption applicable and exempting the permanent disability from apportionment under Labor Code section 4663(e).
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12932864 · 2022-06-24 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of March 29, 2022, wherein it was found that, while employed as a correctional officer during a cumulative period ending on June 6, 2017, applicant sustained industrial injury to his heart and in the form of hypertension causing permanent disability of 29% after apportionment.
Applicant's heart trouble developed during employment as a correctional officer, triggering the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.2, which exempts the permanent disability from apportionment under Labor Code section 4663(e).
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12210104 · 2022-02-14 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order of December 1, 2021, in which the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that on February 7, 2018, the injured employee, the applicant, sustained industrial injury to his left thumb while employed as a machinist by Sepragen Corporation, insured by The Hartford (defendant). The WCJ also found that the injury resulted in the need for medical treatment and surgery provided by the lien claimant herein, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.). In addition, the WCJ found that the injured employee's case-in-chief was never the subject of a Stipulated Award or Compromise and Release, that the case was administratively closed by defendant, that the current proceeding was initiated by the V.A.
The WCJ and WCAB found that federal law expressly preempts California Labor Code Section 5307.1 and the OMFS with respect to the VA's billings, and that applicable federal billing schedules apply instead.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9807190 · 2021-03-01 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of December 7, 2020, wherein it was found that applicant sustained presumptive injury while employed by the State of California, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). In finding industrial injury, the WCJ found that the pneumonia presumption for peace offers working for CDCR in a custodial role codified in Labor Code section 3212.10 applied to this matter, and that applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.
The WCJ found the applicant suffered valley fever (pneumonia) during employment, supported by credible testimony and medical evidence, and the defendant did not rebut the presumption of industrial injury.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9855080 · 2021-02-12 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3DISCUSSION A WCJ is required to "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22 [2010 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 74] (Appeals Board en banc).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475 [2001 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Board en banc), "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Citation omitted.) (Id. at p. 476.) The WCJ's decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton, supra, at p.
The Board found the record insufficient to evaluate the Petition for Reconsideration or the WCJ's Order due to lack of admitted evidence, issues submitted for decision, and stipulations or admissions of the parties, thus granting reconsideration and returning the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12210104 · 2021-02-09 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.5DISCUSSION We find two issues that require further exploration by the parties and by the WCJ: (1) the effect of Independent Bill Review (IBR) on the V.A.'s lien and its claim of preemption; and (2) the extent of the WCAB's authority to find preemption. As for the first issue, we note that ordinarily, medical treatment expense disputes are subject to the jurisdiction of IBR, pursuant to which the Administrative Director of the DWC issues a final determination, subject to review by the WCAB on limited grounds. In light of the primacy of IBR, this raises the question of whether and how the WCAB has jurisdiction, in the first instance, to reach the issue of federal preemption.
The WCAB found unresolved issues regarding the applicability of Independent Bill Review (IBR) and federal preemption, requiring further briefing and a new decision by the WCJ.
Official decision · page 5 →

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.

BOEHM & ASSOCIATES
Boehm & Associates
4600 Boehm
BOEHM ASSOCIATES
4600BOEHM LAW
BOEHM

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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Boehm & Associates

Decisions

Years

2019–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

10 for the applicant

6 for the defense

3 returned for more record

Counted over 19 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.

ADJ8775554 · 2026-04-20 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on January 12, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the Findings, as relevant here, the WCJ found that though applicant was found to be defendant's employee, applicant did not meet his burden of proving injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). As a result, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing in connection with his Application for Adjudication.

Applicant provided unrebutted testimony and medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE; WCJ erred in disbelieving applicant's testimony and placing disproportionate weight on EDD form; absence of contrary evidence from defendant; injury found compensable by preponderance of evidence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10774716 · 2025-09-02 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 2, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment in the form of a stroke and to the psyche; that applicant's injury has resulted in permanent total disability; and that defendant has not met its burden of proof with regard to non-industrial apportionment.

The WCJ and WCAB found that the QME's apportionment opinion was not substantial evidence because it apportioned to causation of injury (stroke) rather than causation of disability, and did not explain how risk factors caused the disability. Therefore, the award of 100% permanent total disability without apportionment was upheld.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11323598 · 2024-05-28 · Eureka District OfficeLiensmixed

Determinative passage · p.1Petitioner 4600 Boehm on behalf of lien claimant Anthem Blue Cross (Anthem), filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Joint Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 29, 2023.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in limiting the reimbursement period and approved a stipulation resolving the lien for a reduced amount, rescinding the prior WCJ decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10504110 · 2023-09-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuenot_reached

Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ issued the order2 joining the Mets 15 days after the filing of the petition for joinder, without providing the parties with notice of intention under rule 10832 or setting the matter for further hearing, and accordingly, there is an insufficient basis upon which to evaluate the issues raised in the Mets' Petition. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.)

There was no evidentiary record or notice of intention before the order joining the Mets as party defendant, so the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed as premature and the matter is returned for further proceedings to create a record.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10767201 · 2023-09-01 · San Diego District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Defendant contends that applicant's claim was barred by the one year statute of limitations to apply for workers' compensation benefits pursuant to Labor Code section 5405. The three points designated in section 5405 as the start of the one year period are: date of injury; the last payment of disability indemnity; and the last date on which medical treatment benefits were furnished. (Lab. Code, § 5405(a)-(c).) The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and therefore, the burden of proof rests with defendant. (Lab. Code, § 5409, 5705.) According to defendant, applicant filed his claim form beyond the one year statute of limitations and therefore his claim is barred. (Petition, p. 4.)

The statute of limitations was tolled because defendant breached its duty to notify applicant of workers' compensation rights, and applicant was prejudiced by the breach as he was unaware of his rights until later.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10774716 · 2023-02-10 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.14Temporary disability is not defined by statute but is considered a temporary impairment that will improve over time, once the injured worker has been given appropriate medical treatment to resolve his or her condition. Total Temporary Disability (TTD) payments are intended to be a temporary wage replacement during applicant's period of recovery. Once the injured worker has plateaued, and there is no expectation that his or her condition will improve with further medical treatment, the applicant is considered permanent and stationary and no longer entitled to TTD payments. (See Western Growers Ins. Co, v. WCAB (Austin) (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 227, 236 [58 Cal Comp Cases 323].) Applicant's claim that she is entitled to TTD from 12/30/2016 to 7/5/2017 as a result of her industrial injury is supported by the substantial medical evidence in this case, the exact amounts of which are to be adjusted by the parties with WCAB jurisdiction reserved in the event the parties are not able to resolve the issue amongst themselves, less 15% applicant attorney's fee of the TTD awarded.

Substantial medical evidence supports applicant's entitlement to temporary disability for the specified period, with amounts to be adjusted by parties and WCAB jurisdiction reserved if unresolved.

Official decision · page 14 →

ADJ12932864 · 2022-09-19 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of June 24, 2022, wherein we found that while employed as a correctional officer during a cumulative period ending on June 6, 2017, applicant sustained industrial injury to his heart and in the form of hypertension causing permanent disability of 54%. In so finding, we amended a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of March 29, 2022, wherein it was found that applicant's injury had caused permanent disability of 29% after Labor Code section 4663 apportionment of permanent disability.

The Board found that the applicant's heart trouble developed during his service, making the heart trouble presumption applicable and exempting the permanent disability from apportionment under Labor Code section 4663(e).

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12932864 · 2022-06-24 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of March 29, 2022, wherein it was found that, while employed as a correctional officer during a cumulative period ending on June 6, 2017, applicant sustained industrial injury to his heart and in the form of hypertension causing permanent disability of 29% after apportionment.

Applicant's heart trouble developed during employment as a correctional officer, triggering the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.2, which exempts the permanent disability from apportionment under Labor Code section 4663(e).

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12210104 · 2022-02-14 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order of December 1, 2021, in which the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that on February 7, 2018, the injured employee, the applicant, sustained industrial injury to his left thumb while employed as a machinist by Sepragen Corporation, insured by The Hartford (defendant). The WCJ also found that the injury resulted in the need for medical treatment and surgery provided by the lien claimant herein, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.). In addition, the WCJ found that the injured employee's case-in-chief was never the subject of a Stipulated Award or Compromise and Release, that the case was administratively closed by defendant, that the current proceeding was initiated by the V.A.

The WCJ and WCAB found that federal law expressly preempts California Labor Code Section 5307.1 and the OMFS with respect to the VA's billings, and that applicable federal billing schedules apply instead.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9807190 · 2021-03-01 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of December 7, 2020, wherein it was found that applicant sustained presumptive injury while employed by the State of California, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). In finding industrial injury, the WCJ found that the pneumonia presumption for peace offers working for CDCR in a custodial role codified in Labor Code section 3212.10 applied to this matter, and that applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.

The WCJ found the applicant suffered valley fever (pneumonia) during employment, supported by credible testimony and medical evidence, and the defendant did not rebut the presumption of industrial injury.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9855080 · 2021-02-12 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3DISCUSSION A WCJ is required to "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22 [2010 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 74] (Appeals Board en banc).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475 [2001 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Board en banc), "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Citation omitted.) (Id. at p. 476.) The WCJ's decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton, supra, at p.

The Board found the record insufficient to evaluate the Petition for Reconsideration or the WCJ's Order due to lack of admitted evidence, issues submitted for decision, and stipulations or admissions of the parties, thus granting reconsideration and returning the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12210104 · 2021-02-09 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.5DISCUSSION We find two issues that require further exploration by the parties and by the WCJ: (1) the effect of Independent Bill Review (IBR) on the V.A.'s lien and its claim of preemption; and (2) the extent of the WCAB's authority to find preemption. As for the first issue, we note that ordinarily, medical treatment expense disputes are subject to the jurisdiction of IBR, pursuant to which the Administrative Director of the DWC issues a final determination, subject to review by the WCAB on limited grounds. In light of the primacy of IBR, this raises the question of whether and how the WCAB has jurisdiction, in the first instance, to reach the issue of federal preemption.

The WCAB found unresolved issues regarding the applicability of Independent Bill Review (IBR) and federal preemption, requiring further briefing and a new decision by the WCJ.

Official decision · page 5 →