Wyman & Hegwer

What they litigate

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

• Permanent disability rating4
• AOE/COE1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• San Francisco 3
• Santa Rosa 3

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 returned for more record
• 2 for the applicant
• 1 for the defense

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.

• ADJ14079246 · 2026-05-26 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6However, the WCJ did not follow Dr. Mandell's conclusions and determined that the WPI for the shoulder should be 5%, with a permanent disability rating of 11% and therefore applicant's permanent disability rating, including both the neck and right shoulder, was 26%. (Opinion on Decision (OOD), pp. 4-6; F&A, pp. 1-2.) The WCJ stated that Dr. Mandell's alternative rating might be viable under other circumstances. (OOD, pp. 4-6.) The WCJ explained that Dr. Mandell's use of grip strength was incorrect for an injury above the elbow and that the correct table for applicant's injury was 16-35 on page 510 of the AMA Guidelines. (OOD, pp. 4-6.)

  The WCJ's 5% WPI rating for the right shoulder was not supported by substantial medical evidence, and Dr. Mandell's 17% WPI rating based on grip strength loss was not adequately clarified or supported. The Appeals Board found a lack of substantial evidence to support either rating and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ18206391 · 2026-05-04 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.15Here, PQME Dr. McGahan's expert medical opinions are based on inadequate medical history and an incorrect legal theory and therefore are not substantial.

  PQME Dr. McGahan's opinions were not substantial evidence due to inadequate medical history and incorrect legal theory; record requires further development.

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ11316047 · 2024-04-02 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the January 16, 2024 Findings of Fact and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an in-home support worker during the cumulative period ending May 20, 2018, sustained industrial injury to her heart, hypertension, bilateral knees, bilateral hands, cervical spine, thoracic spine, and psyche. The WCJ found that applicant sustained permanent partial disability of 81 percent and awarded corresponding indemnity and a life pension.

  The WCAB found that the vocational expert's report did not constitute substantial evidence due to its failure to properly address medical apportionment and the inclusion of a nonindustrial lumbar spine injury. The Board granted reconsideration to allow further development of the record to properly adjudicate permanent disability and apportionment issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11930142 · 2021-11-19 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In his June 12, 2019 report, Dr. Anderson stated that the impairments for the thyroid disease, scarring and loss of neck tissue, impaired speaking, deglutition/taste, and deconditioning should be added rather than combined as they all derived from his neck surgery. (Joint Exhibit VV, Report of Agreed Medical Evaluator Scott Anderson, Dated June 12, 2019, Page 3.) At his deposition in this matter, Dr. Anderson gave a detailed explanation as to why he believed the impairments should be added rather than combined. He testified when the applicant's thyroid was removed, it led to impaired swallowing and saliva function, which in turn led to impaired nutrition and made his overall recovery more difficult. (Joint Exhibit WW, Transcript of the deposition of Agreed Medical Evaluator Scott Anderson, M.D., dated October 9, 2019, Pages 29, 30 and 33-37.) I found that Dr. Anderson's opinion that the impairments for the thyroid disease, loss of skin in the neck, difficulties with speech and swallowing/deglutition should be added, rather than combined, is substantial medical evidence.

  The WCJ found the applicant's impairments should be added rather than combined, supported by substantial medical evidence from AME Dr. Anderson and others, leading to a 100% permanent disability rating.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14359841 · 2021-12-23 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On November 29, 2021, petitioner filed a Withdrawal of Petition for Removal. Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petition for Removal.

  Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, leading to dismissal.

  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.

• Wyman & Hegwer
• WYMAN & HEGWER
• WYMAN HEGWER

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.