California WCABLaw firm
Finnegan, Marks, Theofel & Diamond
Finnegan, Marks, Theofel & Diamond is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2008–2025. The disputes run to QME/AME process (2), Penalties under Labor Code §5814 (1) and Reopening / new and further disability (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then San Francisco. The firm it meets most often is Boxer & Gerson (1).
- Decisions
- 13
- Years
- 2008–2025
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 3
Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 7 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.
7 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 11 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 → - ADJ9752268 · 2021-10-07 · Oakland District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.2As for the substance of applicant's petition, we find merit in his contention that further development of the record is needed to evaluate his pain condition and its impact on his ability to be employed. Specifically, we conclude that the medical record requires further development on the issues of whether applicant has the diagnosis of CRPS that is industrial, whether he sustained industrial injury to his left hip, and the extent of permanent impairment resulting from the left knee injury and the other conditions if they are industrial. We will amend the WCJ's decision
Further medical development is required to determine if applicant has industrial left hip injury or CRPS and to reassess permanent disability; the AME's opinion was found unreliable on these points due to incomplete record review.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ11652399 · 2021-02-25 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We further add that defendant's burden of proving the knowledge component of Labor Code Section 5412 is not met merely by showing that the employee knew he had some symptoms. (Chambers v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 556, 559 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 722]; Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Rotondo) (1950) 34 Cal.2d 726, 729 (15 Cal.Comp.Cases 37).) These principles were discussed by the appellate court in City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 467 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 53].) In the Johnson case applicant formed the belief more than one year before he filed his application for workers' compensation benefits that his cardiac problems were work related. The Appeals Board and appellate court concluded that applicant did not have the requisite knowledge of an industrial injury even though he believed his cardiac symptoms were caused by his work:
Applicant did not have the requisite knowledge of an industrial injury until advised by a physician; no evidence applicant had specialized medical knowledge; missed work days before claim filing were not compensable disability without contemporaneous medical evidence; recommended work restrictions were not indicative of permanent disability as defendant did not accommodate them.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12292905 · 2021-02-03 · San Jose District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, defendant is only challenging the WCJ's finding that defendant's request for a replacement qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel is denied. This is an interlocutory decision regarding discovery. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
Defendant did not show that a replacement QME panel was warranted because there was no evidence the QME failed to receive information as required by section 4062.3(b), and defendant's reliance on Pettit was misplaced due to factual differences and misrepresentations.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ6780758 · 2025-04-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) 2 In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, and Award on January 16, 2025 and all of the parties served were located in California. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Monday, February 10, 2025 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on February 12, 2024 is untimely and will be dismissed.
The petition was filed on February 12, 2025, after the deadline of February 10, 2025, making it untimely and subject to dismissal under the cited authorities.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ6780758 · 2023-12-29 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2To the extent applicant's petition challenges the January 29, 2020, MOH/SOE or the October 17, 2023 MOH/SOE, these are not final decisions. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534- 535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold"
The petition was dismissed because it was filed after the 25-day deadline following the final decision and because the challenged orders were not final decisions subject to reconsideration.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ13690951 · 2022-08-17 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought removal of Orders issued at an April 13, 2002 Mandatory Settlement Conference. Subsequently, the parties agreed to settle by Stipulations with Request for Award. Accordingly, the Petition for Removal of the decision issued on April 13, 2022 is moot. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
The parties settled by Stipulations with Request for Award, making the removal petition moot.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ11058868 · 2022-03-30 · Oakland 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 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 → - ADJ11002814 · 2022-03-09 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers'
The July 13, 2021 Order Changing Administrators was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration was dismissed; removal was granted due to significant prejudice or irreparable harm if denied.
Official decision · page 1 → - 2008-eb-1 · 2008-06-02 · San Francisco District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.113 permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS), adopted January 1, 2005, under Labor Code section
The Appeals Board held that the applicant failed to carry the burden of demonstrating that the adoption of the 2005 PDRS was arbitrary and capricious or inconsistent with Labor Code section 4660(b)(2), thus failing to rebut the presumptive validity of the 2005 PDRS.
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.
- FINNEGAN, MARKS, THEOFEL & DESMOND
- FINNEGAN MARKS THEOFEL & DESMOND
- FINNEGAN MARKS
- FINNEGAN, MARKS, THEOFEL, AND DESMOND
- Finnegan, Marks, Theofel & Diamond
- Finnegan, Marks, Theofel & Desmond
- Finnegan, Marks & Hampton
- Finnegan Marks
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.