Mehr & Associates

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
• Anaheim 2
• Riverside 2
• Bakersfield 1
• Fresno 1
• San Diego 1
• San Luis Obispo 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 defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 17 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.

• ADJ19073561 · 2025-03-17 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4II. Turning now to the merits of the Petition, it is well established that the employee bears the burden of proof in establishing 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.) Section 3600(a)(7), however, bars an employee's claim for compensation where the injury arises out of an altercation in which the injured employee is the initial physical aggressor. Since it is defendant here who claims this defense, it is defendant's burden to establish that applicant was in fact the initial physical aggressor. (Lab. Code, § 5705 ["burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue"].) The case of Mathews v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 719 [37 Cal. Comp. Cases 124, 127-128] provides some guidance as to the applicability of the initial aggressor defense. In Mathews, the court held that section 3600(a)(7) bars recovery only when two conditions are present: first, the injury for which workmen's compensation benefits is sought must "arise out of an altercation," second, the injured employee must be the "initial physical aggressor" in that altercation. (Mathews, supra, at p.

  Defendant failed to prove applicant was the initial physical aggressor; evidence showed the other driver was at fault and the defense must be narrowly construed.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10450766 · 2024-12-31 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3On October 4, 2024, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, in which the WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant was employed by defendant, that the injuries to her lumbar spine and coccyx were AOE/COE, and that "[r]e-evaluations with the PQME in psychiatry, Dr. Howard Greils and the PQME in urology, Dr. Ernest Agatstein, are not warranted." (10/4/24 Findings of Fact, at pp. 1-2.)

  The WCJ found re-evaluations not warranted; the defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal; reconsideration was adequate remedy; thus petition dismissed and removal denied.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11373743 · 2024-01-24 · Santa Ana District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.22Based on the medical reporting and the opinions of the regularly appointed physician, Dr. Davis, the applicant's industrial injury, the aggravation of her pre-existing psychological condition, was predominantly caused, 80%, by the actual events of her employment with the defendant.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial psychological injury predominantly caused (80%) by actual events of employment, supported by medical opinion of Dr. Davis and legal standards requiring predominant causation by work events.

  Official decision · page 22 →
• ADJ14929271 · 2022-09-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Defendant argues that Applicant simply could not keep his story straight and is not credible. The trial court is the "sole judge" of witness credibility. David v. Kahn, 7 Cal.App.3d. 868, 874. The fact finders determination of the veracity of a witness is final. People v. Bobeda, 143 Cal.App.2d. 496, 500. Credibility determinations thus are subject to extremely deferential review. La Jolla Casa De Manana v. Hopkins, 98 Cal.App.2d 339, 345-346. In workers' compensation, the trier of fact must weigh all the evidence, including testimony and its credibility, to determine whether there is a sufficient record based upon which to make a finding. See generally Garza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 3 Cal.3d 312. The credibility determinations of the workers' compensation judge are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence because the judge has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and weigh their statements with their manner on the stand. Id. at 319.

  The WCJ found the Applicant credible despite some inconsistencies and communication difficulties, and found Dr. Smith's medical report substantial evidence supporting industrial injury. The WCJ adopted the report and denied the Petition for Reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ13225262 · 2022-08-08 · Santa Ana District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4In this case, while we agree with the WCJ that finding impairment is not the same as finding injury, the PQME has not provided an analysis of the causation of applicant's hand impairment. Dr. Heron should be provided with an opportunity to comment on this issue. Therefore, we will return this matter to the trial level for further development of the medical record.

  The PQME provided inconsistent opinions on causation of hand impairment and did not provide an analysis of causation; further development of the record is required.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ8734121 · 2022-07-19 · Anaheim District OfficeApportionmentdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.8Although we are deferring issues of permanent disability and apportionment, we note that to be substantial evidence on the issue of the approximate percentages of permanent disability due to the direct results of the injury and the approximate percentage of permanent disability due to other factors, 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 [2005 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 71] (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Further, a medical report is not substantial evidence unless it sets forth the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions. (Granado v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 69 Cal.2d 399, 407 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647] (a mere legal conclusion does not furnish a basis for a finding); Zemke v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 794, 799-801 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 358] (an opinion that fails to disclose its underlying basis and gives a bare legal conclusion does not constitute substantial evidence).) Thus, while we express no opinion as to the validity of the apportionment on the record before us, we note that valid apportionment must reflect the principles espoused above.

  The Board deferred the issue of apportionment pending further development of the record, noting that valid apportionment must be based on substantial evidence and reasonable medical probability, not speculation.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10793276 · 2022-05-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5In this case, in order to determine if applicant sustained one or two cumulative trauma injuries, and, if she sustained two injuries, the portion of applicant's permanent disability caused by each injury, we must return this matter to the trial level for further development of the medical

  The Appeals Board found that the medical record was insufficient to determine whether there were one or two cumulative trauma injuries and to apportion permanent disability between them, requiring remand for further medical development.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13990999 · 2022-04-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5On 2/3/2022, the WCJ authored the following Findings of Fact: the applicant, born [] while employed on 12/2/2020 as an OSD Clerk at Bloomington, California by Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the lumbar spine, additional claim(s) of injury to additional body parts deferred. (Findings of Fact, 2/3/2022, page 1.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found the applicant's testimony credible and supported by medical opinions from the primary treating physician and the Panel QME, establishing injury AOE/COE despite prior injuries and arrests not impeaching credibility.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12893727 · 2021-08-24 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.34. Petitioner contends that the WCJ erred in: a) Finding that the applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the period of May 22, 2020, through the present: and b) Finding that the applicant was entitled to continuing temporary total disability benefits.

  The WCJ's finding that the applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from May 22, 2020, to the present and continuing is supported by credible testimony, medical evidence, and legal precedent, including the failure of the defendant to offer modified work when the applicant was released to modified duty.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13207893 · 2024-11-22 · Santa Ana 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 to petitioner if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13573244 · 2024-04-24 · San Diego 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.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12762131 · 2023-09-12 · Fresno 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 denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  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. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• MEHR & ASSOCIATES
• Mehr & Associates
• MEHR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
• MEHR ASSOCIATES
• MEHR &ASSOCIATES

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.