Jones Clifford

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• San Francisco 10
• Oakland 2
• Bakersfield 1
• Redding 1
• Sacramento 1
• Santa Rosa 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.

• 8 for the applicant
• 5 for the defense
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 16 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.

• ADJ13071035 · 2026-04-24 · San Francisco District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Substantial evidence supports my finding of a delay in medical treatment that gave rise to my assessment of penalties under Labor Code section 5814, attorneys' fees under Labor Code section 5814.5 and sanctions in the form of lien claimant's attorneys' fees. Labor Code section 5814 provides for a penalty for the unreasonable delay of compensation. Medical treatment is considered compensation, and a delay in its provision can give rise to a penalty under Labor Code section 5814. (See, Grubb & Ellis v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 807; Paula Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 820.)

  Defendant repeatedly denied payment for authorized medical care, violating Labor Code section 4610.3 and causing delay in compensation under Labor Code section 5814. The delay was egregious and harmed the applicant's medical care and recovery.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ18574715 · 2026-04-10 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8V. 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. While this matter is pending before the Appeals Board, we encourage the parties to participate in the Appeals Board's voluntary mediation program. Inquiries as to the use of our mediation program can be addressed to WCABmediation@dir.ca.gov. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED.

  The WCJ found 56% permanent disability based on medical evidence and applicant testimony, using the addition method for impairments per Kite and Vigil. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review whether substantial medical evidence supports the WCJ's decision.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ8534435 · 2025-12-19 · Oakland District OfficeContribution / subrogationdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7For all the reasons above, we therefore conclude that CEC has no right to credit in these contribution proceedings stemming from its Longshore Act settlement. Accordingly, we will affirm the arbitrator's F&A, except that we will amend it to clarify that no credit was previously awarded, as described above. In all other respects, including the award of contribution subject to adjustment by the parties with jurisdiction reserved to the arbitrator in the event the parties cannot determine the proper amount of contribution themselves, the F&A remains intact.

  CEC was not entitled to a credit for its Longshore Act settlement in the California contribution proceedings because it had the opportunity to assert a credit in the federal case and failed to do so; California law does not provide for such a credit in these circumstances, and the purpose of preventing double recovery was not implicated.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ18355035 · 2025-09-16 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9Gordon does note the contribution of the ongoing use of the hand for nearly five years as a police officer and general use. (Defendant's Exhibit B at 15: 23 § 16:4.) As noted by the WCJ, his testimony and reporting is contradictory at moments, but Dr. Gordon still concludes that the current condition is the natural progression of the treatment for the original injury. As a result, the WCJ found the reporting not substantial. We too agree that the report is not substantial. This results in a lack of substantial medical evidence of causation for the current symptoms, which must be addressed before any findings can be made.

  The WCAB found that the AME's report was not substantial evidence to support a finding of cumulative trauma injury, as it was contradictory and did not clearly establish causation for a new injury. The matter was remanded for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ15251480 · 2025-06-03 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Order" (F&O) issued on March 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that the Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction to determine an applicant's entitlement to advance disability pension payments ("ADPP") under Labor Code1 section 4850.4.

  The Appeals Board has jurisdiction to award ADPP as it constitutes compensation under Division 4 of the Labor Code, consistent with Gage. The issue of entitlement to ADPP must be decided at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18189096 · 2025-05-20 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6and is therefore attributable to the prior industrial injury, for which the employer is not liable. (Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1115.) Here, the parties stipulated that applicant had a prior award of 19% permanent disability, but it is unclear how the prior disability was calculated as the award is not in evidence. Accordingly, the prior award is not in the record and we cannot review it upon reconsideration.3 The medical reporting that is in evidence from the prior QME established 22% WPI to the lumbar spine using range of motion, which based on the parties' stipulation, exceeds the award itself. It appears that per Dr. Chow's medical record review, the prior QME's opinions on disability may have changed and that defendant may have submitted a stale ratings report in error. The current record does not establish how the prior award was calculated and without such evidence, defendant did not meet its burden of proving that the two awards overlapped. Accordingly, we grant applicant's petition for reconsideration and as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the February 26, 2025 F&A and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  The prior award was not in evidence and the defendant did not meet the burden of proving overlap of disability for apportionment under section 4664(b).

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11704922 · 2024-08-29 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.62. Amending the Pleadings and the Statute of Limitations Next, defendant argues that applicant's amending the pleadings to conform with the proof violates the statute of limitations. We do not agree. The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and therefore, the burden of proof as to whether an application for adjudication is barred by the statute of limitations rests with defendant, (§ 5409, 5705; see City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 467, 471 [209 Cal. Rptr. 463, 50 Cal. Comp. Cases 53].) The limitations period for which a claim must be filed is the later of (1) one year from the date of injury, (2) one year from the last provision of disability payments per Labor Code sections 4650 et. seq., or (3) one year from the last provision of medical benefits. (Ibid.) Labor Code section 5709 states that "No informality in any proceeding or in the manner of taking testimony shall invalidate any order, decision, award, or rule made and filed as specified in this division..." (§ 5709.) Failure to comply with the rules as to details is not jurisdictional.

  The Board held that amending the pleadings to conform to proof does not violate the statute of limitations and that the burden of proof on limitations rests with defendant.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ6831983 · 2022-12-14 · San Francisco District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant San Mateo County Transit District (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the August 16, 2022 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a bus operator on September 11, 2008, sustained industrial injury to her back, right knee and psyche. The WCJ determined that the correct date of commencement of permanent total disability benefits was June 13, 2009, the day following the last payment of temporary total disability. The WCJ further determined that defendant's failure to timely pay accrued benefits triggered the statutory increase of Labor Code section 4650(d), and warranted the imposition of penalties for unreasonable delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5814.1 The WCJ also awarded attorney fees pursuant to section 5814.5 and statutory interest.

  The Board found that permanent total disability benefits must commence retroactive to the last date of temporary disability (June 12, 2009) regardless of the date the applicant was declared permanent and stationary, based on Labor Code section 4650 and the Brower decision. The defendant's delay in payment triggered statutory increases, penalties, interest, and attorney fees, which were affirmed except for an amendment to the commutation method of attorney fees.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12113500 · 2021-07-16 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1the applicant, alleges injury resulting in Death occurred on December 12, 2018, while employed by the City and County of San Francisco. At the time of the Applicant's death the employer was permissibly self-insured.

  The injury arose out of and in the course of employment under the special activity exception to the going and coming rule, as the employer benefits from employees having access to vehicles for travel between job sites, and the injury occurred during such travel.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18778938 · 2024-11-14 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14577699 · 2024-05-10 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2The Petition in this matter was filed on March 13, 2024. This was more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's February 16, 2024, Joint Findings of Fact & Award which was served on all parties contained in the Official Address Record and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.

  The petition for reconsideration was filed more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision and was therefore untimely.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12660350 · 2024-03-19 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, the PWCJ issued the Order changing venue of this matter to the Bakersfield district office based upon defendant's petition for consolidation of the case with two other cases, but without a proper request to change venue under Labor Code section 5501.6, without creation of a record, and without providing the parties with an opportunity to offer evidence in rebuttal or otherwise object. Thus, the Order violated due process thereby causing defendant substantial prejudice and irreparable harm.

  The Order changing venue was issued without a proper request under Labor Code section 5501.6, without a hearing or opportunity to be heard, violating due process and causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to defendant.

  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.

• JONES CLIFFORD
• JONES CLIFFORD, LLP
• JONES CLIFFORD LLP
• Jones Clifford
• JONES, CLIFFORD, LLP

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.