- Home
- Contact
- About Us
- Forgot Password
- Memberships
- Register
- Submit Press
- Privacy Policy
- TOS
- Disclaimers
- Marketing & Branding
- Corporate Sales
- Education
- RSS
© 2026 WorkCompCentral Workers Compensation Information
Purchase this story for only $7.99!
Add to CartFor access to all our articles, check out our subscription options.
Aug 4, 2026
Join the Claims Association of Greater Chicago (CAGC) for a day of golf, networking, and fun at Th …
Aug 5, 2026
Complimentary live webinar · Brigham & Associates, Inc. in partnership with Wisedocs Time 1:00 PM …
Aug 8, 2026
HIRMA's upcoming Beach Clean Up on Saturday, August 8, 2026, from 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM at Huntingto …
2 Comments
Log in to post a comment
Franco Muñoz Aug 4, 2026 a 1:24 am PDT
One of the most striking findings concerns geography. According to CWCI, Southern California applicant attorneys represented 23 percent of cumulative-trauma cases involving Northern California employers in 2019, but 79 percent by 2025. During the same period, the share of those cases filed in Southern California venues increased from 15 percent to 38 percent. CWCI appropriately describes this as an area requiring additional research—not as proof that the attorneys or claims were improper.
As a Northern California applicants’ attorney, we see the practical side of this trend. We receive calls from many injured workers who live and worked in Northern California, but whose attorney has offices only in Southern California and filed their case at a Southern California WCAB district office. Some applicants do not fully understand why their case was filed hundreds of miles from their home, whether they had another option, or how the selected venue may affect them if an in-person appearance, attorney meeting, or other local assistance becomes necessary.
California Labor Code section 5501.5 allows an application to be filed in the county where the employee resides, where the injury occurred—or, for a cumulative-trauma claim, where the last injurious exposure occurred—or where the employee’s attorney maintains the attorney’s principal place of business. The statute also requires the employee’s written consent to the selected venue. California’s venue rules were intended to provide a rational connection between the claim and the selected location, with the convenience of the injured worker and counsel given significant consideration.
The CWCI report should lead to a broader discussion—not merely about the number of cumulative-trauma claims, but about how injured workers are solicited, informed, represented, and served. The guiding principle must remain the same: venue and representation should be selected for the benefit of the injured worker, not simply for the administrative convenience or business model of the law firm.
Tom Martin Aug 4, 2026 a 8:12 am PDT
What percentage of CT claims do QME’s find are legit? What is the “take nothing” percentage for CT’s by the WCAB? What matters is this: Are injured workers getting the benefits they are entitled to under the law? Are Nor Cal injured workers finding representation elsewhere in the State because they need more Nor Cal attorney’s to take on the burden of representing legit claims in a system that is notoriously complex and slow? These questions also warrant study and answers.