Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Sacramento 23
• Oakland 22
• Santa Ana 22
• Van Nuys 19
• Bakersfield 17
• San Francisco 14
• Anaheim 13
• Los Angeles 12
• Fresno 9
• Redding 8
• Riverside 8
• Pomona 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.

• 88 for the defense
• 85 for the applicant
• 40 returned for more record

Counted over 203 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.

• ADJ9826933 · 2026-06-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5II. The WCJ found that applicant was permanent and stationary or maximum medically improved (MMI) on July 12, 2023 (Finding of Fact No. 4). Defendant agrees that applicant was MMI on July 12, 2023, when Dr. Hyman assigned him 75% WPI. (Petition, at p. 3:18-19; 4:1-6.) Then, defendant contends that permanent total disability payments should therefore begin on July 12, 2023. In our en banc decision, Brower v. David Jones Constr. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550, we addressed the timing of permanent disability indemnity payments in relation to payment of temporary disability benefits.

  The Board followed the en banc precedent in Brower, holding that permanent total disability indemnity payments start from the date permanent total disability is first established, not from the date the final level of disability is determined, thus payments start June 9, 2016, not July 12, 2023.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14834670 · 2026-05-26 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant State of California, Department of Social Services, In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 4, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the applicant (decedent), while employed during the period December 3, 2020, through December 17, 2020, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by COVID-19, resulting in death, and that IHSS did not meet their burden of proof to establish that decedent had concurrent employment as at the time of his injury.

  The QME report by Dr. Betsy Kuriakose was found to be well-reasoned, based on an adequate history and evidence, supporting the finding that decedent contracted COVID-19 during employment, resulting in death. The defendant's arguments against causation and alternative sources of infection were rejected due to lack of evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13968756 · 2026-05-11 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant The Hoplon Group, LLC (Hoplon) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 4, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant was employed by the Hoplon Group on December 1, 2020, the date of the alleged work-related injury.

  The WCJ found Hoplon Group, LLC was the employer on the injury date based on testimony and evidence, but deferred the issue of Liebo Builders' employment status due to unclear control and subcontracting arrangements.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15991395 · 2026-05-11 · Oakland District OfficeSJDB voucherremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9Finally, the Petition alleges error in failing to award a SJDB voucher. My rationale in the Opinion on Decision in finding that the record was insufficient to make such a finding was that the copy of the QME's P&S report in evidence, i.e., Joint 101, Report dated 12/16/24, did not have an attached DWC-AD 1011.33.36 form, which provides for specific work restrictions and as discussed in the Opinion at p. 12, is the trigger for the investigative process by the employer to determine if modified or alternative work can and will be offered pursuant to Rule 10133.31. The Opinion notes that it is possible there was such a completed form and that it was just not attached to the copy of the report that was uploaded. I therefore officially found and concluded that the record was insufficient to make a finding on whether the Applicant was entitled to a SJDB voucher in this case. See FA&O Finding No. 7.

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to make a finding on entitlement to the SJDB voucher due to the absence of the required DWC-AD 10133.36 form and deferred the issue for further record development.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ13355568 · 2026-05-08 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ failed to determine the date of injury in accordance with section 5412 and failed to determine when CIGA last paid benefits under section 5405(c) for its administrated claim. Accordingly, upon return, the WCJ must determine not only when CIGA had knowledge of its right to file an Application, but must also determine when applicant first suffered temporary or permanent disability from the cumulative injury in order to raise a cognizable claim for CIGA's reimbursement of benefits. In addition, the WCJ must determine when CIGA last paid benefits on companion case number ADJ2881803, to determine the applicability of section 5405(c) in the

  The WCJ failed to determine the date of injury under section 5412 and when CIGA last paid benefits under section 5405(c), thus the claim's timeliness could not be properly assessed.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14015513 · 2026-04-13 · Redding District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award and Opinion on Decision (F&A) issued on January 7, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed on October 5, 2020, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the femur, bruised lung, and in the form of a traumatic brain injury; (2) the employer has furnished some medical treatment, and the primary treating physician is Dr. Timothy Lo; (3) there has not been a timely Utilization Review (UR) denial of the August 20, 2025 Request For Authorization (RFA) from Dr. Lo for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week of home attendant care; and (4) the requested treatment in the form of home attendant care is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of industrial injury.

  The medical evidence was unanimous that the applicant requires 24/7 home attendant care as reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury, supported by the primary treating physician Dr. Lo, the AME Dr. Munday, and a Life Care Plan. The defendant's contention that the RFA was incomplete and the Utilization Review was validly denied was rejected as invalid and untimely, allowing the WCJ to determine medical necessity.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16435725 · 2026-03-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Finding and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 22, 2025, wherein the WCJ found that applicant's April 4, 2022 injury "did not constitute or result from a violent act and was not a catastrophic injury pursuant to Labor Code section 4660.1 and 3208.31 which would entitle applicant to increased permanent disability for the psyche aspect or erectile dysfunction, as set forth in the attached Opinion on Decision."

  The WCJ's conclusion that the injury was not a violent act or catastrophic injury was found to be inadequately supported, with concerns about disregarding some medical evidence and insufficient findings on the psychiatric injury causation and catastrophic injury factors. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11757597 · 2026-03-30 · Anaheim District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Defendant has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration wherein they dispute the Findings, Award and Order dated 05/27/2025 finding that defendant's revocation of authorization for Dr. Jerome Peterson, D.D.S./Guru Dentistry to treat applicant constitutes a bad faith action or tactic that is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 and Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8, section 10421(a) and (b)(6); that Applicant is entitled to additional temporary disability for the period 01/10/2020 and continuing at a weekly rate to be adjusted by the parties with jurisdiction reserved up to the maximum allowed pursuant to Labor Code section 4656(c)(2) less amounts previously paid by defendant; that applicant sustained injury to urological and erectile dysfunction; and that applicant's attorney has performed services of a reasonable value of 15% of the temporary disability.

  Applicant is entitled to additional temporary disability for the period 01/10/2020 and continuing, with weekly rate to be adjusted by the parties.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14646082 · 2026-03-24 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8It is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) To constitute substantial evidence "...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 (Appeals Board en banc).) "Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories. Medical opinion also fails to support the Board's findings if it is based on surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess." (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93].)

  Dr. Welborn's medical opinions were found speculative and not substantial evidence to deny injury AOE/COE to the left shoulder and right upper extremity body parts; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ18371631 · 2026-03-13 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the "proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or `convincing.'" (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Here, to find industrial injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees, the WCJ relied on the medical evidence of global PQME, Adam J.

  The WCJ relied on substantial medical evidence from PQME Dr. Stoller and credible applicant testimony to find injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees during the cumulative trauma period through June 30, 2017.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ16567838 · 2026-03-13 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the evidence demonstrates that the going and coming rule was inapplicable because the applicant did not participate in a "local commute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours," as required for the rule to apply. First, his commute does not fit within the definition of "local"2 since applicant testified that he traveled in the van for an hour or more in each direction, from Yuba City, California, located in Sutter County, to Winters, California, located in Yolo County. (3/4/24 Transcript of Record, at pp. 27-28.) As the Court noted, the distance from the work site to applicant's home in Yuba City "was approximately 60 miles" and thus outside the definition of "local." (the applicant, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1169.)

  Defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the going and coming rule applies because applicant's commute was not local, did not have fixed hours, and defendant's evidence was unreliable.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14478546 · 2026-03-09 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, the WCJ's February 2, 2023 findings did not comply with the requirement in section 5313 that the WCJ "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy." (Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(c)(5); Blackledge, supra, 75 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621.) In the 2023 proceeding, there were multiple body parts framed as issues for trial, including the left lower extremity, left leg, left ankle, and lumbar spine. The 2023 FA&O, however, only addressed injury to applicant's left lower extremity, left leg, and left ankle, and was silent as to injury to the lumbar spine. That is, the 2023 F&A included no finding regarding the additional body part of lumbar spine at issue here. Moreover, under Award in the F&A, it stated that "All other issues are deferred at this time." Thus, although the body part was listed as an issue in the minutes of hearing, and discussed in the Opinion on Decision, the issue was not actually "decided on the merits," as required. (Pacific Lumber, Co., supra, 37 Cal.4th 921, 943.)

  The WCJ's 2023 Findings and Award did not address lumbar spine injury, leaving that issue undecided and not final, so reconsideration was improper on that issue; continuing jurisdiction under Labor Code section 5410 and good cause under section 5803 allow reopening for new and further disability or compensable consequence injury.

  Official decision · page 8 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 35.

• HANNA, BROPHY, MACLEAN, MCALEER & JENSEN
• HANNA, BROPHY, MACLEAN, MCALEER & JENSEN, LLP
• HANNA BROPHY
• HANNA, BROPHY, MacLEAN, McALEER & JENSEN
• Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen, LLP
• HANNA, BROPHY, MacLEAN, McALEER & JENSEN, LLP
• Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen
• HANNA BROPHY MACLEAN MCALEER & JENSEN
• Hanna Brophy
• HANNA BROPHY MACLEAN MCALEER & JENSEN LLP
• HANNA, BROPHY, MACLEAN, MCALLER & JENSEN
• HANNA BROPHY MACLEAN, MCALEER & JENSEN

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.