Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 10
• Van Nuys 7
• Marina del Rey 5
• Pomona 5
• Anaheim 3
• Long Beach 3
• Oxnard 3
• Los Angeles 2
• Oakland 2
• San Diego 2
• Santa Rosa 2
• Redding 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.

• 23 for the defense
• 13 for the applicant
• 9 returned for more record

Counted over 45 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.

• ADJ8015380 · 2026-06-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.18For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the July 2, 2019 Findings and Order is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board deferred the rollback issue pending resolution of the section 3600.5(b) application at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ10642765 · 2026-05-18 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings of Fact that relate to the issue of new and further disability, and substitute a new Order that the issue of whether applicant has sustained new and further disability as alleged in her Petition to Reopen dated April 13, 2021, is deferred.

  The Appeals Board found the evidentiary record insufficient to adjudicate new and further disability and compensable consequence injuries, and thus deferred the issue for further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ20169304 · 2026-04-20 · Redding District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11evidence. PQME Dr. Taylor discusses many contributing factors he believes have a bearing on the cause of applicant's claimed injury to provide percentages of causation, but PQME Dr. Taylor does not provide the reasoning linking the factors to the injury. This defect is not cured by referring to clinical expertise and years of training. Further, PQME Dr. Taylor provided opinions based on an incomplete record and appears to have relied on an incorrect history. In summary, PQME Dr. Taylor's opinions are not substantial evidence. (Hegglin, supra, pp. 169-170.)

  PQME Dr. Taylor's opinions on causation were found not to be substantial medical evidence due to lack of reasoning, incomplete record, and incorrect history; therefore, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ10959526 · 2025-09-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, the WCJ's finding that applicant failed to meet his burden of proof that he sustained injury on May 27, 2017 AOE/COE is not supported by any medical evidence. Although we acknowledge the WCJ's reservations regarding applicant's lack of credibility, the WCJ's determination is not dispositive. There is no medical evidence in the record with respect to whether the applicant sustained an industrial injury on May 27, 2017. Applicant was never evaluated by a medical-legal evaluator nor a treating physician regarding the alleged injury. The only medical

  The WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to prove injury AOE/COE to the foot and toes on May 27, 2017, is not supported by any medical evidence. The record lacks medical-legal or treating physician evaluation on causation. The WCAB has a duty to develop the record when medical evidence is absent or insufficient, so the matter is remanded for further proceedings to obtain a PQME opinion on causation.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10841321 · 2025-07-15 · San Diego District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on September 27, 2021, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant's permanent disability was 25% after apportionment.

  The Board found that the QME's apportionment opinion did not constitute substantial evidence because it lacked adequate causation analysis, so defendant did not meet burden of proof on apportionment. The Board rescinded the WCJ's apportionment reduction and awarded 57% permanent disability without apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16452926 · 2025-05-19 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on March 3, 2025, defendant seeks reconsideration of my February 11, 2025 Findings and Award, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed during the cumulative trauma period from June 13, 2012 through July 7, 2022 as a caregiver in California, by Aegis Senior Communities, LLC, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her right wrist and thumb and fingers, and that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 28%. In doing so, I relied upon the opinion of the primary treating physician, Dr. Adam Stoller.

  The WCJ and WCAB panel found the opinion of Dr. Stoller to be substantial evidence supporting a 28% permanent disability rating with 25% apportionment to non-industrial ligamentous laxity, rejecting the defendant's challenges to the medical evidence and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9549789 · 2025-05-05 · San Bernadino District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11There is simply no evidence apart from Applicant's statements that Dr. Faddoul engaged in any wrongdoing. Dr. Faddoul was not present to answer the allegations and Applicant presented no proof of what may have occurred. Applicant has confirmed he has not pursued any remedies in civil or criminal court, has filed no police reports, and has not consulted an attorney as to his rights (if any) related to these allegations. Weighing the evidence as is relevant to the present case, I found Applicant's argument on this matter to be unpersuasive as to the substantiality of Dr. Faddoul's reporting. This court made no comment as to Applicant's credibility with respect to whether the allegations are true, only that Dr. Faddoul's reporting was not rendered non-substantial based on the evidence presented at trial.

  The Board found no evidence supporting the allegations against Dr. Faddoul and found his reporting substantial and persuasive.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ17084700 · 2025-02-07 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4In this case, the employer has not met the burden of proof necessary to establish that it

  The employer failed to prove that modified or alternative work was both available and offered to the applicant, thus the applicant was entitled to temporary disability benefits for the period claimed.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13474651 · 2024-11-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 14, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata because applicant previously settled a case involving the same employers, similar injuries, and the same body parts.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ erred in barring the claim by res judicata because the prior settlement did not clearly include the brain, nervous system related to psych or stress, or neurological problems aside from Parkinson's disease, and the applicant did not intend to settle those injuries.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16830722 · 2023-11-21 · Oxnard District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Having reviewed the trial record, we agree with the WCJ that the treatment notes/reports

  The medical reports from Dr. Taher and Dr. Sollaccio did not constitute substantial evidence as to whether the requested surgery was reasonable and necessary, but referenced diagnostics indicated possible need. The record was insufficiently developed, so remand for further development was required.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9088316 · 2022-09-20 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6III. Applicant contends that he is entitled to total temporary disability for the period from November 1, 2013, to December 6, 2016. Temporary disability connotes an inability to work and an inability to earn any income during the period when an employee is recovering from the effects of the injury. (§ 4654; Herrera v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 254, 257 [34 Cal.Comp.Cases 382].) Here, applicant testified that following his career as a football player, he began a career in teaching, and eventually was employed as a high school vice principal and later a high school principal until his retirement in 2014. (10/31/2017 MOH, p. 6.) Applicant relies on the opinion of orthopedic QME Dr. Kim, as expressed in Dr. Kim's report of December 16, 2014. In this report, however, and in his December 16, 2016 report, Dr. Kim states under "Ability to Return To Work"

  Applicant failed to show medical evidence that he was unable to work or wished to return to work during the claimed period; thus, no temporary disability was awarded.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13319190 · 2022-08-23 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact of June 1, 2022, wherein it was found that, while employed on March 11, 2020 as a probation officer, applicant sustained industrial injury to "the body system, COVID-19, circulatory system, respiratory system, [and] psyche/stress." The only issue at trial was whether applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. The finding of industrial injury was made both based on the fact that qualified medical evaluator internist Jeffrey A. Hirsch, M.D. found the injury industrial (Finding No. 7) and because the injury was presumed industrial pursuant to Labor Code section 3212.86.

  The WCAB found that the medical evidence, specifically Dr. Hirsch's report, was incomplete and insufficient as it lacked a full history including working conditions and co-worker diagnoses, requiring further development of the record on industrial causation.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 16.

• LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH
• LEWIS BRISBOIS
• LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
• Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith
• LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
• LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
• Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
• Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
• LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
• Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
• LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
• Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, 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.