California WCABLaw firm

Thomas Law Alliance, INC.

Thomas Law Alliance, INC. is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Apportionment (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at Santa Ana. The firm it meets most often is Dimaculangan & Associates (2).

Decisions: 6
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 6 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

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

Who they face

1 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Santa Ana 6

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.

3 for the applicant
2 returned for more record

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ10684274 · 2024-06-03 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred
Determinative passage · p.104. The issue of whether applicant's subsequent cumulative trauma injury meets the 35 percent permanent disability threshold under Labor Code section 4751 is deferred.
The issue of whether the subsequent cumulative trauma injury meets the 35 percent permanent disability threshold under section 4751 is deferred for further medical record development and trial proceedings.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ10160818 · 2023-12-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 8, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained a cumulative trauma to his thoracic spine, with a cumulative trauma period ending on October 19, 2001 (finding no. 5, finding no. 7) and that there is 10% legal apportionment to non-industrial causes (finding no. 11).
The WCJ found that applicant sustained a cumulative trauma to his thoracic spine with a cumulative trauma period ending on October 19, 2001, supported by substantial medical evidence including Dr. Newton's well-reasoned reports and history.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15963667 · 2023-10-24 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 2, 2023 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant "did not timely raise the issue of untimely denial of the cumulative trauma [CT] claim during the period of [October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021]" though there was no prejudice to defendant; that defendant's denial of the CT claim during the period October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021 was timely; and that applicant did not suffer injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on October 20, 2021 or during the period of October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing for the claim of injury on October 20, 2021 or during the period of October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021.
The WCJ found the denial of the cumulative trauma claim timely and no injury arising out of employment during the period, but the Appeals Board found the record unclear and granted reconsideration for further review.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10160818 · 2025-10-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we grant Traveler's Petition for Reconsideration and issue Notice of our Intention to amend our Decision, and correct the F&A to strike Finding 2.
The Appeals Board found that Finding 2 incorrectly stated that Travelers was the workers' compensation carrier in 2001, which was contradicted by the record and prior stipulations, constituting a clerical error that required correction to ensure substantial justice and due process.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ9999707 · 2023-05-12 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order on Application for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund Benefits (F&O) issued on February 14, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) applicant satisfied the requirements to qualify for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits on the following grounds: (a) applicant had a permanent partial labor-disabling impairment at the time of the subsequent injury; (b) the subsequent injury arose out of and in the course of employment and resulted in an additional permanent partial disability; (c) the degree of permanent disability caused by the combination of the pre-existing and the subsequent injury is greater than the disability that would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone; (d) the combined effect of the subsequent injury and the previous disability or impairment is seventy percent or more of total disability; (e) the permanent disability resulting from the subsequent industrial injury is thirty-five percent or more when such disability is considered alone and without regard to, or adjustment for, the age or occupation of the employee; and (2) applicant is one hundred percent permanently disabled. The WCJ ordered that applicant meets the requirements for SIBTF benefits and that applicant is permanently totally disabled.
The WCJ found that the applicant met all eligibility requirements for SIBTF benefits, including having a pre-existing labor-disabling impairment, a subsequent industrial injury causing additional permanent disability, and a combined permanent disability of 70% or more. The WCAB panel affirmed this finding and denied the defendant's contentions against eligibility.
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.

THOMAS LAW ALLIANCE
Thomas Law Alliance, Inc.
THOMAS LAW ALLIANCE, INC.
Thomas Law Alliance

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.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Thomas Law Alliance, INC.

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ10684274 · 2024-06-03 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

Determinative passage · p.104. The issue of whether applicant's subsequent cumulative trauma injury meets the 35 percent permanent disability threshold under Labor Code section 4751 is deferred.

The issue of whether the subsequent cumulative trauma injury meets the 35 percent permanent disability threshold under section 4751 is deferred for further medical record development and trial proceedings.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ10160818 · 2023-12-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 8, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained a cumulative trauma to his thoracic spine, with a cumulative trauma period ending on October 19, 2001 (finding no. 5, finding no. 7) and that there is 10% legal apportionment to non-industrial causes (finding no. 11).

The WCJ found that applicant sustained a cumulative trauma to his thoracic spine with a cumulative trauma period ending on October 19, 2001, supported by substantial medical evidence including Dr. Newton's well-reasoned reports and history.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15963667 · 2023-10-24 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 2, 2023 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant "did not timely raise the issue of untimely denial of the cumulative trauma [CT] claim during the period of [October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021]" though there was no prejudice to defendant; that defendant's denial of the CT claim during the period October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021 was timely; and that applicant did not suffer injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on October 20, 2021 or during the period of October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing for the claim of injury on October 20, 2021 or during the period of October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021.

The WCJ found the denial of the cumulative trauma claim timely and no injury arising out of employment during the period, but the Appeals Board found the record unclear and granted reconsideration for further review.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10160818 · 2025-10-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we grant Traveler's Petition for Reconsideration and issue Notice of our Intention to amend our Decision, and correct the F&A to strike Finding 2.

The Appeals Board found that Finding 2 incorrectly stated that Travelers was the workers' compensation carrier in 2001, which was contradicted by the record and prior stipulations, constituting a clerical error that required correction to ensure substantial justice and due process.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ9999707 · 2023-05-12 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order on Application for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund Benefits (F&O) issued on February 14, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) applicant satisfied the requirements to qualify for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits on the following grounds: (a) applicant had a permanent partial labor-disabling impairment at the time of the subsequent injury; (b) the subsequent injury arose out of and in the course of employment and resulted in an additional permanent partial disability; (c) the degree of permanent disability caused by the combination of the pre-existing and the subsequent injury is greater than the disability that would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone; (d) the combined effect of the subsequent injury and the previous disability or impairment is seventy percent or more of total disability; (e) the permanent disability resulting from the subsequent industrial injury is thirty-five percent or more when such disability is considered alone and without regard to, or adjustment for, the age or occupation of the employee; and (2) applicant is one hundred percent permanently disabled. The WCJ ordered that applicant meets the requirements for SIBTF benefits and that applicant is permanently totally disabled.

The WCJ found that the applicant met all eligibility requirements for SIBTF benefits, including having a pre-existing labor-disabling impairment, a subsequent industrial injury causing additional permanent disability, and a combined permanent disability of 70% or more. The WCAB panel affirmed this finding and denied the defendant's contentions against eligibility.

Official decision · page 1 →