Sheffield & Richards

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Temporary disability2

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 3
• Pomona 2
• Anaheim 1
• Van Nuys 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
• 2 returned for more record
• 1 for the applicant

Counted over 6 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ20910758 · 2026-06-30 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7In this matter, applicant attempted to amend the date of injury to conform to the testimony provided by applicant which, as all parties seem to agree, directly refuted a period of employment prior to April 20, 2025 as initially plead. It is not clear from the record whether defendant objected to the motion, but the WCJ denied the request. We agree that the request was made at a late point in litigation after both parties had effectively rested and the exhibits had been agreed to and discussed. However, the motion should have been granted and the matter deferred for further discovery and a hearing on the merits.

  The WCJ erred in denying amendment of the pleadings to conform to testimony regarding employment dates; the proper procedure was to develop the record further. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to determine employment during the correct period.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12202677 · 2025-06-18 · Anaheim District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8However, defendant filed a DOR on November 7, 2024. At trial, the issue of permanent disability was submitted. Yet, there is no QME or agreed medical evaluator (AME) in psychology or psychiatry in violation of section 4061(i). Although the dissenting panelist appears to place responsibility for the failure to obtain such medical-legal reporting on applicant, it is defendant who filed the DOR without proceeding to a QME or AME and without a stipulation by applicant that she was not claiming permanent disability. Section 4061(i) clearly requires that the parties proceed to a medical-legal evaluation before a DOR is filed, and a defendant may not use an applicant's lack of diligence as an excuse to circumvent this statutory requirement.

  The Appeals Board found no psychiatric QME evaluation was obtained before trial as required by law, and deferred permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney fees for psychiatric injury for further development.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ14896429 · 2024-11-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Based upon the foregoing, applicant was temporarily totally disabled from August 28, 2021, to February 9, 2022 as per Dr. Anand. Thereafter, from February 10, 2022 through November 6, 2023 and ongoing, applicant was on light duty as per the findings of Dr. Anand and Dr. Abitbol. Arguably, applicant was off work and therefore temporarily totally disabled during the period from June 5, 2023 through March 5, 2024 as per the reports of Dr. Suarez.

  Applicant was found temporarily totally disabled from August 28, 2021 through February 9, 2022 based on Dr. Anand's reports, and on light duty thereafter per Dr. Anand and Dr. Abitbol. Applicant was off work again from June 5, 2023 through March 5, 2024 per Dr. Suarez. Defendant could not accommodate work restrictions, so applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits for 104 weeks.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16328028 · 2024-10-07 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p.

  The Order Rescinding Findings and Order is an interim order, not a final order subject to reconsideration; removal denied as no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ8593038 · 2024-08-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Labor Code section 5900(a) provides in pertinent part that: Any person aggrieved directly or indirectly by any final order, decision, or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers' compensation judge under any provision contained in this division, may petition the appeals board for reconsideration in respect to any matters determined or covered by the final order, decision, or award, and specified in the petition for reconsideration. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a).) Since the issuance of our O&O, the WCA has yet to issue a new Findings and Order. In light of this, there is currently no F&O for us to reconsider. As such, defendant Republic is not aggrieved, and we must dismiss the Petition.

  No new Findings and Order was issued after the remand, so there was no aggrieved order for the WCAB to reconsider, requiring dismissal of the Petition for Reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ18948204 · 2024-08-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We 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 WCAB panel found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis and the record.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.

• SHEFFIELD & RICHARDS
• SHEFFIELD & RICHARDS, LLP
• SHEFFIELD & RICHARDS 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.