Stockwell, Harris, Woolverton & Fox

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Oakland 4
• Los Angeles 3
• Anaheim 2
• Pomona 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Marina del Rey 1
• Sacramento 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.

• 7 for the applicant
• 6 for the defense
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 15 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.

• ADJ16419247 · 2026-01-23 · Pomona District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814remanded

  Determinative passage · p.6In the instant case, we are unable to provide meaningful review as to whether any interest, penalties under section 5814(a), and/or attorneys' fees under section 5814.5 are due because of the state of the record. We note that the matter was submitted with stipulations but without testimony or any exhibits. It is impossible to consider the issue of whether defendant's behavior was unreasonable as the mere fact that multiple checks were mailed does nothing to explain why the behavior occurred.

  The record was incomplete and lacked evidence to determine if defendant's delay in payment was unreasonable, so the matter was remanded for further proceedings to develop the record and properly assess penalties and fees.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ8511460 · 2025-09-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Therefore, the Order of Dismissal is void because there was no proper notice of intention to dismiss as required by WCAB Rule 10888, subdivisions (c) and (e). It is also void because the language of the Order is not based on a proper evidentiary record.

  The Order of Dismissal was void because there was no proper notice of intention to dismiss as required by WCAB Rule 10888, and no evidence that lien claimant had notice of the hearing or failed to appear. The order also used improper 'self-destruct' language and lacked a proper evidentiary record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8290263 · 2025-05-05 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7In the instant matter, based upon applicant's testimony, the passage of time since applicant's last date of treatment through defendant (over three years), and defendant's lack of rebuttal evidence, we agree with the WCJ that defendant unreasonably delayed or refused medical treatment. Per applicant's testimony, treatment was stopped in "late 2021" after the parties settled the claim via an August 18, 2020 Stipulations with Request for Award and "Medicare became aware that Zurich was supposed to be paying the bills." (Minutes Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH & SOE), January 14, 2025, p. 4.) Applicant further testified that despite discussions with Zurich's claims adjuster and multiple attempts at securing treatment with numerous providers, he was unable to secure a provider and "did not receive anything from Zurich regarding treatment until he was authorized by [Zurich] to see Dr. Mohamed." (Id. at p.

  Based on applicant's credible testimony and defendant's lack of rebuttal evidence, the WCJ's finding of unreasonable delay or refusal of medical treatment was upheld.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10531850 · 2025-03-17 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedeferred

  Determinative passage · p.12FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant born on ________, while allegedly employed on July 19, 2016 as a drywall installer, occupational group number 380, at 25771 Serenate Drive, Mission Viejo, California, by TIM CAGLE aka TIMOTHY HOWARD CAGLE, individually dba TIM CAGLE DRYWALL, and GREG AND BROOKE BAIRD, homeowners, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to the neck, arm, hand, knee and various body parts. 2. Applicant was employed by TIM CAGLE, individually dba TIM CAGLE DRYWALL, on the claimed date of injury. It is concluded the unrebutted evidence is that at the time of the claimed injury TIM CAGLE, individually dba TIM CAGLE DRYWALL, was uninsured. 3. The parties were denied an opportunity to cross-examine TIM CAGLE, and Exhibit "G" (letter from Tim Cagle dated June 6, 2016) is struck from evidence. 4. The homeowners, GREGORY and BROOKE BAIRD, are applicant's ultimate hirer for purposes of imposing workers' compensation liability. 5. The issue of whether applicant is excluded from being deemed an employee of the homeowners GREGORY and BROOKE BAIRD pursuant to Labor Code Section 3352(h) is deferred.

  The issue of whether applicant is an employee of the homeowners pursuant to Labor Code Section 3352(h) is deferred for further proceedings due to lack of sufficient record and misassigned burden of proof by WCJ.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ13873540 · 2024-08-02 · Los Angeles District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, applicant asserts that she is owed penalties in connection with this settlement; applicant does not otherwise seek to set aside any other terms of the agreement. However, section 5814(c) makes clear that if pending claims for penalties are not specifically excluded in the C&R, then an injured worker is not entitled to them. Applicant's Petition for Penalties was outstanding at the time of the settlement and was not excluded by the terms of the settlement. Thus, once the WCJ approved the C&R, it is presumed that the Petition for Penalties was resolved.

  Section 5814(c) presumes that any accrued claims for penalty are resolved by approval of a C&R unless expressly excluded; applicant's penalty claim was not excluded in the C&R, so it is deemed resolved and not recoverable.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16362715 · 2023-09-25 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Based on all of the foregoing, and with no sufficient medical evidence presented to the contrary, Dr. Pang's analysis and opinion constitutes substantial evidence, and presents as more persuasive, to wit: Applicant suffered a new and distinct injury to his lumbar spine, cervical and thoracic spine, pelvis, coccyx, and right shoulder girdle as a result of the work-related incident of 12-23-2020.

  The Board found Dr. Pang's opinion that the December 23, 2020 incident caused new injuries to multiple body parts more persuasive and substantial evidence than Dr. Feinberg's non-committal and contradictory opinions, supporting a finding of new injury AOE/COE from the work incident.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10900742 · 2026-06-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 04, 2023 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury to psyche in either ADJ10900742 or ADJ10900743.

  The Board granted reconsideration to review the entire record and then rescinded the prior Findings and Order, returning the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15894624 · 2025-12-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on September 26, 2025, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10133424 · 2025-06-27 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.15For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 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.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow further review of the merits and the entire record, deferring final decision.

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ16197947 · 2025-01-07 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant JD2 Incorporated, insured by Federal Insurance Company c/o Gallagher Bassett (defendant), has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued and served by the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) in this matter on September 24, 2024. In that decision, the WCA found that applicant, while employed as an ironworker from June [16], 2020 to June 16, 2021, sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, elbow and wrists, with the issue of injury to his respiratory system deferred. The WCA further found applicant's knowledge and first date of disability of his cumulative trauma pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5412 was June 17, 2021. Finally, the WCA found and awarded applicant temporary total disability (TTD) for the period June 17, 2021 through June 15, 2023, at a rate to be adjusted by the parties.

  The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and due process concerns, thus granting reconsideration and remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12463997 · 2024-10-15 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

  The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for consideration of the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while reconsideration is pending.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17850737 · 2024-09-20 · Marina del Rey 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 proceeded to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  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.

• STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WOOLVERTON & FOX
• STOCKWELL HARRIS WOOLVERTON & FOX
• STOCKWELL HARRIS, WOOLVERTON & FOX
• STOCKWELL, HARRIS WOOLVERTON & FOX

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.