Whiting, Cotter & Hurlimann, L.L.P.

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Riverside 11
• Santa Ana 6
• San Bernardino 4
• Sacramento 2
• Los Angeles 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.

• 10 for the applicant
• 8 for the defense
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 20 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.

• ADJ11349173 · 2026-06-26 · Riverside District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813remanded

  Determinative passage · p.8It is well established that the Appeals Board has exclusive jurisdiction over fees to be allowed or paid to applicants' attorneys. (Vierra v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1128]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10840.) In calculating attorney fees, our basic statutory command is that the fees awarded must be "reasonable." (Lab. Code, § 4903, 4906(a), (d).) Pursuant to section 4906, in determining what constitutes a "reasonable" attorney fee, the Appeals Board must consider four factors: 1) the responsibility assumed by the attorney; 2) the care exercised by the attorney; 3) the time expended by the attorney; and 4) the results obtained by the attorney. (Lab. Code, § 4906(d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10844.) In Vierra, the Court of Appeal held:

  The WCAB found insufficient evidence to support the 12% attorney fee awarded and deferred the issue for further proceedings, ordering defendant to withhold 15% in trust pending resolution.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ9159725 · 2025-12-19 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial cumulative injury which rated to 100% permanent total disability, without apportionment, based upon the reporting of applicant's vocational evaluator.

  The Board found that applicant failed to prove that work restrictions were 100% industrial in origin, and that vocational expert improperly gave medical opinions, thus substantial evidence was lacking to support permanent total disability and apportionment findings. The matter was remanded for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11122058 · 2025-12-12 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on April 11, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found in pertinent part that while employed as a building maintenance superintendent for the County of Riverside, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment during the period of January 1, 2001 to November 27, 2017 to both wrists, both shoulders, left elbow, both knees, cervical spine, lumbar spine, hypertension, and lymphoma; and that the injury caused 94% permanent disability.

  The Board found substantial medical evidence supporting the addition method for aggregating orthopedic and internal disabilities, as explained by AME Dr. Simpkins, which showed independent impacts on activities of daily living (ADLs) and a synergistic effect, thus rebutting the combined values chart (CVC) method used by the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10836901 · 2025-09-25 · Riverside District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the sole contention of the Petition for Reconsideration is that the evidence does not justify the finding of apportionment to degenerative changes in the right knee in case number ADJ10836901. While Dr. Doty does provide an opinion regarding cause of permanent disability of the right knee, he states only that he would apportion "a minimum of" 25 percent of current impairment to "the effects of all nonindustrial activity contributing to the early arthritis first evident on her initial x-rays and MRIs prior to her arthroscopic surgery." (Joint I, Report of Orthopedic PQME Dr. Doty dated July 7, 2020, page 4, paragraph 4.) He does not explain how and why "all nonindustrial activity" and "early arthritis" are causing approximately 25 percent of present disability. This does not meet the standards for substantial medical evidence of apportionment explained in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc):

  Dr. Doty's opinion of a minimum 25% nonindustrial apportionment was unsubstantiated and did not meet the substantial medical evidence standard, so the Board found no apportionment to the right knee and increased permanent disability to 42%.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11088696 · 2024-08-29 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6The parties proceeded to trial on an incorrect legal theory. Throughout the reporting in this matter the evaluators failed to establish whether the impact upon applicant's ADLs overlapped. If applicant's ADL impacts do overlap, the evaluators failed to opine on whether there was a synergistic impact upon the ADLs. In deposition, applicant focused on whether the body parts rated were distinct. That issue is irrelevant.

  The WCAB found that the parties litigated the issue under an incorrect legal theory focusing on body parts rather than overlapping activities of daily living (ADLs). The medical evaluators failed to establish whether the impact on ADLs overlapped or if there was a synergistic impact. Therefore, the matter was remanded for further development of the record to address the correct standard for CVC rebuttal.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ8439665 · 2023-09-18 · Riverside District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant on May 8, 2023, and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition fails to make specific citations to the record and will be denied.

  The petition failed to make specific citations to the record as required by WCAB Rule 10945(b) and case law, and the WCJ's credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence, so the petition was denied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12136545 · 2022-12-05 · San Bernardino District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Whether Applicant is Entitled to Retroactive Temporary Total Disability Indemnity

  The WCJ found the applicant was entitled to retroactive temporary total disability indemnity because her retirement was motivated by the industrial injury and the primary treating physician's report was credible and substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9580793 · 2022-11-08 · Riverside District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Turning to the WCJ's finding of industrial varicose veins, defendant contends that this injury is barred by the one-year statute of limitations of Labor Code section 5405. Defendant alleges that it has been more than one year since applicant received medical treatment for a prior claim of cumulative trauma for the period February 19, 1990 through February 2, 2000. Again, this allegation is contradicted by the medical record. In his deposition of September 23, 2015, Dr. Tirmizi explained that applicant's employment as a correctional counselor continued exposing his condition of varicose veins to further injury after 2000 and continuing. (Applicant's exhibit 6, Tirmizi deposition of 9/23/15, p. 57.) Thus, the substance of applicant's claim of injury for the period February 19, 1990 through July 22, 2014 is the previously uncompensated period from 2000 through 2014, for which no statute of limitations defense is raised. In footnote 13 of its petition for reconsideration, defendant improperly cites to a 2014 Thermal Ablation Study published in the Scientific World Journal, which is not in evidence. In any event, the study does not rebut Dr. Tirmizi's opinion, specific to this case, that applicant's varicose veins are industrially-related due

  The Board found the varicose veins claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because defendant failed to meet its burden of proof and accepted liability in partial denial letters.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14808611 · 2022-09-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, Dr. Ross repeatedly indicated that applicant's orthopedic symptoms, including the C6 radiculopathy, were caused by the original injury, or were a consequence of that injury. Having reviewed the trial record, including applicant's deposition testimony that her treating doctor told her she had a "pinched nerve" in her neck (see App. Exh. 3, pp. 20 § 21, September 9, 2021, deposition transcript), we see no evidence in the record that contradicts or is otherwise inconsistent with Dr. Ross' opinions regarding the cause of applicant's orthopedic symptoms. Again, Dr. Ross examined applicant, took an accurate history, reviewed the medical record, and explained the basis for his conclusions. Thus, his reports constitute substantial evidence that, in addition to the body parts stipulated to by the parties, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her cervical spine (neck).

  The QME Dr. Ross's well-reasoned reports, based on examination, history, and medical record review, constituted substantial evidence that the cervical spine injury was industrially caused and a compensable consequence of the original injury.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11323413 · 2022-03-30 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of January 4, 2022 wherein it was found that, while employed as a firefighter during a cumulative period ending March 30, 2018, applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of hypertension, coronary artery disease, hands including thumbs, shoulders, feet including toes, and to the upper digestive tract in the form of a hiatal hernia causing permanent disability of 89%. In finding permanent disability of 89%, applicant's right and left thumb disabilities were added together rather than combined utilizing the Combined Values Chart in the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities, as were applicant's right and left foot disabilities. The disabilities were otherwise combined utilizing the Combined Values Chart. (2005 Schedule at pp. 8-1 § 8-4.)

  The Board found that the WCJ correctly applied the Combined Values Chart (CVC) for combining disabilities, rejecting the applicant's argument to add orthopedic and internal medicine disabilities based on Dr. Silverman's opinion, which was not substantial medical evidence to rebut the CVC use.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9077153 · 2022-01-31 · San Bernardino District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Regarding the issue of apportionment, according to Dr. Pelton, there is 89% apportionment to the non-industrial fusions of 1998 & 2010 under Labor Code section 4663 because the ratio between the pre-existing impairment and the post-industrial injury impairment is 89% (25 [divided by] 28) = 89%.) In applying the ratio between the two impairments to determine apportionment of permanent disability, it appears that Dr. Pelton assumed the pre-existing impairment (25%) was subsumed within applicant's impairment at the time of the evaluation regarding the July 23, 2013 injury (28%). However, Dr. Pelton did not provide an explanation for this assumption. Further, Dr. Pelton treated impairment as the equivalent of permanent disability without explaining why this produces an accurate evaluation of apportionment and an accurate description of applicant's disability caused by the motor vehicle accident.

  Dr. Pelton's apportionment opinion was rejected for lack of explanation and failure to comply with Escobedo requirements, thus no substantial evidence supported apportionment decision.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11297325 · 2022-01-14 · San Bernardino District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4diagnosed with varicose veins by a medical provider, Internal Medicine PQME Dr. Denise Townsend, and was advised by said provider that the varicose veins had at least one causative factor related to her occupation. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, pages 12-13.) In turn, the undersigned found that the Applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations under Labor Code section 5405(a) as the Applicant filed her Application for Adjudication of Claim within one year of the October 30, 2018 date of injury.

  The WCJ found the Applicant's date of knowledge of the varicose veins condition was October 30, 2018, when diagnosed by Dr. Townsend, and that the claim was timely filed within one year of that date, rejecting Defendant's argument that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 4 →

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.

• WHITING, COTTER & HURLIMANN
• WHITING, COTTER & HURLIMANN, LLP
• WHITING COTTER & HURLIMANN
• LAW OFFICES OF WHITING, COTTER & HURLIMANN, LLP
• Whiting, Cotter & Hurlimann, L.L.P.
• Whiting, Cotter & Hurlimann, LLP
• LAW OFFICES OF WHITING & COTTER
• Whiting, Cotter & Hurlimann
• WHITING, COTTER & HURLIMAN
• WHITING COTTER

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.