California WCABLaw firm

Brian Thornton Law

Brian Thornton Law is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (2), Temporary disability (2) and Apportionment (1). They were heard most often at Oakland.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 1

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 7

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.

3 for the applicant
2 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ10222062 · 2025-01-27 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processmixed
Determinative passage · p.3On October 3, 2024, the WCJ issued the F&O, finding in relevant part "good cause to replace QME, Michael Bronshvag, M.D., with Scott T. Anderson, M.D., who I will appoint as a regular physician pursuant to section 5701, to succeed him with respect to evaluation and reporting on all the relevant internal medicine medical/legal issues posed by this case." (Finding of Fact No. 3.)
The WCJ found good cause to replace QME Dr. Bronshvag due to incomplete and inconsistent medical opinions and the inability to obtain a QME panel in internal medicine oncology, and appointed Dr. Anderson as regular physician; the WCAB affirmed but required parties to meet and confer on an AME before Dr. Anderson's appointment.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ18656564 · 2024-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on August 30, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a bus driver on June 14, 2023, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his right shoulder; and (2) the injury caused an additional period of temporary disability beginning on April 19, 2024 and continuing indefinitely thereafter.
The WCJ's finding of temporary disability benefits entitlement from April 18, 2024 and continuing indefinitely was supported by credible applicant testimony and medical evidence, despite defendant's contention that Dr. Ting's opinion of permanent and stationary status was dispositive. The Appeals Board found Dr. Ting's opinion was based on inadequate medical history and unsupported by other medical reports, and applicant's testimony that he never declined surgery was credible and unrebutted.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12903013 · 2024-05-06 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentremanded
Determinative passage · p.3In my discussion of the substantialness and legal validity of that opinion in the FA&O, I wrote,
The Appeals Board preliminarily found it unclear if substantial medical evidence supported the apportionment finding, warranting reconsideration for further review.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12212593 · 2023-07-10 · Oakland District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In its March 20, 2023 order denying defendant's Petition for Writ of Review (No. A165531), the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) remanded this matter to the Appeals Board to make a supplemental award of reasonable attorney fees to the attorney for respondent (applicant), based upon services rendered in connection with defendant's petition for writ of review. (Lab. Code, § 5801; Crown Appliance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wong) (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 620, 627-628 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 55, 60-61]; Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rodriguez) (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 104, 108-109 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 167, 169-170].) The court's order has become final.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12212593 · 2022-05-17 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In the Petition for Reconsideration, defendant argues that there is no evidence to support the finding that applicant would have continued to work but for her left knee injury and need for surgery. This is incorrect. In uncontroverted testimony, applicant testified that she retired because she was not able to perform the duties of her job as a bus driver due to her left knee injury. (See Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Testimony 10-01-2020, hereinafter "MOH/SOE," at p. 6, lines 1-5 and lines 23-24; p. 7, lines 4-8.) Applicant testified that as the result of the left knee injury, she cannot climb stairs or "get on her knees to fully do her job." (Id., at 7, lines 1-6.) She wants the left knee surgery prescribed by her treating physician Dr. Donald Pang. (Id., at 5, lines 5-8.) The denial of the knee surgery by defendant which was requested by Dr. Pang in an RFA of 08-11- 2020 was an issue for trial. At the time of trial, the surgery remained denied.
Applicant retired early due to left knee injury and inability to perform job duties; medical evidence and credible testimony support entitlement to temporary disability continuing after retirement.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12656490 · 2022-04-11 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11Applicant contends in his answer that there must be a dispute pursuant to section 4062(a) before proceeding with a medical-legal evaluation. (Lab. Code, § 4062(a).)4 Section 4062(a) outlines the process to object to a medical determination by a treating physician in order to trigger the QME panel request process per section 4062.1 (unrepresented) or section 4062.2 (represented). (Lab. Code, § 4062.1, 4062.2.) Section 4062.2(f) permits the parties to agree to an AME "at any time" and expressly prohibits a QME panel request per section 4062.2(b) where the parties have already agreed to submit an issue to an AME. In other words, the parties forwent the QME panel request process per sections 4062 and 4062.2(b) when they agreed to submit the issue to an AME. Therefore, we will grant defendant's Petition as one seeking reconsideration, rescind the F&O and issue a new decision finding that applicant remains bound by the agreement to use Dr. Shalom as an AME in neurology. The parties will be ordered to proceed with discovery utilizing Dr. Shalom. The new decision will retain the parties' trial stipulation to injury AOE/COE to certain body parts. (See Lab. Code, § 5702; see also County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].)
The Appeals Board found that the parties remain bound by the AME agreement per Labor Code section 4062.2(f) which prohibits unilateral withdrawal from the AME agreement without mutual written consent, and ordered discovery to continue with Dr. Shalom.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ12656490 · 2021-11-04 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Although the decision contains a finding that is final, defendant is only challenging an interlocutory finding/order in the decision regarding whether applicant is bound by the AME agreement. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
The Appeals Board found that the statute does not allow unilateral withdrawal from an AME agreement and that the applicant remains bound by the agreement to use Dr. Shalom as AME.
Official decision · page 4 →

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.

BRIAN J. THORNTON, A LAW CORPORATION
Brian Thornton Law
Brian J. Thornton, A Law Corporation
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN THORNTON
Brian J. Thornton

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

2 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ10222062 · 2025-01-27 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processmixed

Determinative passage · p.3On October 3, 2024, the WCJ issued the F&O, finding in relevant part "good cause to replace QME, Michael Bronshvag, M.D., with Scott T. Anderson, M.D., who I will appoint as a regular physician pursuant to section 5701, to succeed him with respect to evaluation and reporting on all the relevant internal medicine medical/legal issues posed by this case." (Finding of Fact No. 3.)

The WCJ found good cause to replace QME Dr. Bronshvag due to incomplete and inconsistent medical opinions and the inability to obtain a QME panel in internal medicine oncology, and appointed Dr. Anderson as regular physician; the WCAB affirmed but required parties to meet and confer on an AME before Dr. Anderson's appointment.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ18656564 · 2024-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on August 30, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a bus driver on June 14, 2023, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his right shoulder; and (2) the injury caused an additional period of temporary disability beginning on April 19, 2024 and continuing indefinitely thereafter.

The WCJ's finding of temporary disability benefits entitlement from April 18, 2024 and continuing indefinitely was supported by credible applicant testimony and medical evidence, despite defendant's contention that Dr. Ting's opinion of permanent and stationary status was dispositive. The Appeals Board found Dr. Ting's opinion was based on inadequate medical history and unsupported by other medical reports, and applicant's testimony that he never declined surgery was credible and unrebutted.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12903013 · 2024-05-06 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentremanded

Determinative passage · p.3In my discussion of the substantialness and legal validity of that opinion in the FA&O, I wrote,

The Appeals Board preliminarily found it unclear if substantial medical evidence supported the apportionment finding, warranting reconsideration for further review.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12212593 · 2023-07-10 · Oakland District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In its March 20, 2023 order denying defendant's Petition for Writ of Review (No. A165531), the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) remanded this matter to the Appeals Board to make a supplemental award of reasonable attorney fees to the attorney for respondent (applicant), based upon services rendered in connection with defendant's petition for writ of review. (Lab. Code, § 5801; Crown Appliance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wong) (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 620, 627-628 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 55, 60-61]; Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rodriguez) (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 104, 108-109 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 167, 169-170].) The court's order has become final.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12212593 · 2022-05-17 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In the Petition for Reconsideration, defendant argues that there is no evidence to support the finding that applicant would have continued to work but for her left knee injury and need for surgery. This is incorrect. In uncontroverted testimony, applicant testified that she retired because she was not able to perform the duties of her job as a bus driver due to her left knee injury. (See Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Testimony 10-01-2020, hereinafter "MOH/SOE," at p. 6, lines 1-5 and lines 23-24; p. 7, lines 4-8.) Applicant testified that as the result of the left knee injury, she cannot climb stairs or "get on her knees to fully do her job." (Id., at 7, lines 1-6.) She wants the left knee surgery prescribed by her treating physician Dr. Donald Pang. (Id., at 5, lines 5-8.) The denial of the knee surgery by defendant which was requested by Dr. Pang in an RFA of 08-11- 2020 was an issue for trial. At the time of trial, the surgery remained denied.

Applicant retired early due to left knee injury and inability to perform job duties; medical evidence and credible testimony support entitlement to temporary disability continuing after retirement.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12656490 · 2022-04-11 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.11Applicant contends in his answer that there must be a dispute pursuant to section 4062(a) before proceeding with a medical-legal evaluation. (Lab. Code, § 4062(a).)4 Section 4062(a) outlines the process to object to a medical determination by a treating physician in order to trigger the QME panel request process per section 4062.1 (unrepresented) or section 4062.2 (represented). (Lab. Code, § 4062.1, 4062.2.) Section 4062.2(f) permits the parties to agree to an AME "at any time" and expressly prohibits a QME panel request per section 4062.2(b) where the parties have already agreed to submit an issue to an AME. In other words, the parties forwent the QME panel request process per sections 4062 and 4062.2(b) when they agreed to submit the issue to an AME. Therefore, we will grant defendant's Petition as one seeking reconsideration, rescind the F&O and issue a new decision finding that applicant remains bound by the agreement to use Dr. Shalom as an AME in neurology. The parties will be ordered to proceed with discovery utilizing Dr. Shalom. The new decision will retain the parties' trial stipulation to injury AOE/COE to certain body parts. (See Lab. Code, § 5702; see also County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].)

The Appeals Board found that the parties remain bound by the AME agreement per Labor Code section 4062.2(f) which prohibits unilateral withdrawal from the AME agreement without mutual written consent, and ordered discovery to continue with Dr. Shalom.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ12656490 · 2021-11-04 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Although the decision contains a finding that is final, defendant is only challenging an interlocutory finding/order in the decision regarding whether applicant is bound by the AME agreement. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)

The Appeals Board found that the statute does not allow unilateral withdrawal from an AME agreement and that the applicant remains bound by the agreement to use Dr. Shalom as AME.

Official decision · page 4 →