Law Offices of Thomas J. Burns

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Permanent disability rating1

Where they appear

• Oakland 3
• San Francisco 3
• San Jose 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.

• 4 for the defense
• 3 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 8 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.

• ADJ9023911 · 2025-01-03 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6DISCUSSION 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.) However, it is defendant's burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant's injuries "arise out of an altercation in which the injured employee is the initial physical aggressor" and that accordingly, applicant's claim should be barred. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a)(7)). To qualify as arising out of an altercation, "an injury must result from an exchange between two or more persons characterized by an atmosphere of animosity and a willingness to inflict bodily harm." (Mathews v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 719 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 124, 127]; Valencia v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 47 Cal.Comp.Cases 36 [writ denied].) The decisions of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903; LeVesque v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d.

  The Board found defendant did not meet its burden to prove applicant was the initial physical aggressor, rejecting the police report as unreliable and noting defendant called no witnesses.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ15505677 · 2024-12-30 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the August 12, 2021 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) found that applicant, while employed as an ironworker on October 8, 2018, sustained industrial injury to his neck, mid-back (thoracic spine) and lower back (lumbar spine). The WCA found that applicant successfully rebutted the scheduled rating under the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) and was permanently and totally disabled without apportionment.

  The WCA's findings and the Appeals Board's review found substantial medical evidence supporting applicant's permanent and total disability based on non-feasibility for vocational rehabilitation, rejecting defendant's apportionment arguments due to lack of substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ6649353 · 2024-04-26 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The difficulty with Zurich's position (as also noted in the Findings, Award, and Order) is that Dr. Newman's 5-19-13 report stated that the 2-17-09 injury caused overlap with the 12-01-06 injury, and that the 2-17-09 injury "aggravated" the 12-01-06 injury.[3] The variance in job duties, noted by Zurich for the second CT period, ignores the fact that Applicant testified that his job duties remained essentially the same during his entire period of employment. (See Exhibit HH, the applicant Depo, 49:15, 50:14 and 52:24) Hence, the first cumulative trauma injury was caused by the same essential work duties that Dr. Newman believes caused the second cumulative trauma injury. (See Exhibit GG, Newman Depo, 9:25, 13:4 and 14:25)

  The Board affirmed the Arbitrator's finding that the cumulative trauma injury periods overlapped and were caused by the same essential work duties, thus liability falls on the insurer covering the last year of injurious exposure per Labor Code Section 5500.5.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12142266 · 2021-11-23 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the WCJ erred in finding that there is no concurrent jurisdiction under California workers' compensation law in this case. The applicant herein, a ferry captain who is a "seaman" under the federal Jones Act, was injured while working on the engine of his ferry, which was tied to a pier in Fisherman's Wharf over the waters of San Francisco Bay. As we explain below, the fact that applicant's employer initially provided maritime benefits under federal law does not deprive the WCAB of concurrent jurisdiction over the ferry captain's subsequently-filed California workers' compensation claim. As our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the WCJ's finding of no concurrent jurisdiction and substitute our finding that the WCAB has concurrent jurisdiction over applicant's workers' compensation claim herein.

  The Board found that the applicant, a ferry captain and seaman under the Jones Act, was injured in territorial waters while working on a vessel tied to a pier in San Francisco Bay, with substantial contacts to California, supporting concurrent jurisdiction under California workers' compensation law despite initial maritime benefits under federal law.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10507939 · 2021-06-03 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5If the true basis for the WCJ's finding of no bilateral knee injury is that applicant's claim was made beyond the Statute of Limitations (an affirmative defense), we cannot uphold it because the WCJ's Opinion on Decision did not provide a complete factual and legal analysis of the elements necessary to sustain the defense. (See Lab. Code, § 5313.) The Opinion on Decision enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the actual basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful. (Evans v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753 [33 Cal. Comp. Cases 350].)

  The WCJ's finding of no bilateral knee injury was reversed because the WCJ did not provide a complete factual and legal analysis of the statute of limitations defense and further development of the record was warranted due to evidence suggesting possible cumulative trauma injury to the knees.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13792318 · 2022-04-19 · 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. To the extent that applicant requests that Judge Howell be disqualified, we deny the request for the reasons stated in the report, which we adopt and incorporate as quoted below.

  Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10346285 · 2021-08-25 · 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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.

  Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy if final decision adverse to petitioner issued.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10126914 · 2021-03-08 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration seeks an order reversing the Finding of Fact that the Applicant has not rebutted the schedule rating and an award of permanent and total disability. As the Applicant has not sought reconsideration on the Findings that the Applicant failed to demonstrate industrial injury to the lumbar spine, that determination is considered final. (See: Labor Code section 5904.) The Applicant's petition incorrectly asserts the undersigned failed to evaluate the vocational and testimonial evidence presented by the Applicant and provides no statutory, regulatory or case law authority to support the assertions made. As the Applicant's assertions at trial and on Reconsideration are based entirely on the Applicant's subjective complaints without any medical support the undersigned recommends Reconsideration be denied.

  The Applicant's petition failed to cite specific record evidence, relied on subjective complaints without medical support, and misrepresented the findings; the WCJ's report was adopted and the petition denied.

  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.

• LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS BURNS
• Law Offices of Thomas J. Burns
• LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. BURNS
• LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS J BURNS
• Law Office of Thomas Burns
• THOMAS BURNS

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.