Johnson Law Firm

What they litigate

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

• Permanent disability rating2
• AOE/COE1

Where they appear

• San Jose 5

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
• 1 for the defense

Counted over 4 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.

• ADJ13594888 · 2026-04-13 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Third Amended Arbitrator's Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on January 30, 2026, by the Ironworkers Workers' Compensation Alternative Dispute Resolution Program arbitrator (WCA).1 The arbitrator found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained an industrial cumulative injury through the period ending on October 1, 2017, to his neck, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral upper extremities, bilateral hands, bilateral wrists, bilateral knees, bilateral feet, bilateral ankles, and psyche. The arbitrator further found that applicant's injury caused applicant to sustain 94% permanent partial disability and that 100% of applicant's disability was industrially caused, without apportionment. The arbitrator found that applicant was amenable to vocational rehabilitation and that he could compete in the open labor market, and thus, applicant failed to rebut the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) and was not permanently totally disabled.

  Applicant's medical evidence and vocational evidence support a finding of permanent total disability, contrary to the arbitrator's original finding of permanent partial disability. The Board found the work restrictions assigned by Dr. Henry to be substantial medical evidence and credited the vocational expert's opinion that applicant cannot compete in the open labor market.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3516476 · 2026-01-26 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On December 24, 2025, we issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Notice), wherein the Appeals Board found that good cause existed to amend the disability rate of a prior award of permanent disability to conform to the stipulations of the parties.

  The Appeals Board found good cause to amend the disability rate to conform to the parties' stipulations and affirmed the prior decision except for the amended finding.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18217235 · 2025-04-29 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In Sanchez, the injured manager also claimed not to have read the waiver, but the arbitrator correctly found that "He is presumed to have read what he signed and he should be bound by its terms." (Id. at p. *8.) Although the arbitrator in Sanchez also stated that the manager had the terms of the waiver explained, that additional fact was not essential to the holding. Applicant filed a valid waiver of workers' compensation coverage excluding him from the definition of employee. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the arbitrator's decision and issue a new decision finding that applicant was not an employee pursuant to Labor Code section 3352(a)(17) and thus excluded from workers' compensation coverage. Since applicant's only argument for not applying the express waiver was the fact that he did not read it, we not need discuss the contours and limits, if any, of the conclusive presumption codified in section 3352(a)(17).

  The applicant executed a valid written waiver of workers' compensation rights, excluding him from coverage under the policy. The waiver is conclusive under Labor Code section 3352(a)(17), and the applicant's subjective intent or failure to read the waiver does not invalidate it.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12909831 · 2026-05-05 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removaldeferred

  Determinative passage · p.10V. Accordingly, we grant defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred the final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record due to incomplete record and procedural issues.

  Official decision · page 10 →

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.

• JOHNSON LAW FIRM
• Johnson Law Firm
• Johnson Firm

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.