Madrid, Arturo, Applicant v. CHAMPION WINOWS, INC.; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by CORVEL CORPORATION, Defendants

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ARTURO MADRID, Applicant
vs.
CHAMPION WINOWS, INC.;
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES; BARRETT BUSINESS
SERVICES, INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by
CORVEL CORPORATION, Defendants
Adjudication Number: ADJ17517114
Pomona District Office
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Defendant Barrett Business Services, Inc. (BBSI), insured by Ace American Insurance
Company, administered by Corvel, seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order
(FA&O) of September 18, 2025, wherein the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found in
relevant part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment
(AOE/COE) while working for two employers and ordered that Ace American Insurance
administer the claim pursuant to applicant’s election against BBSI/ Ace American and that
jurisdiction is reserved over any contribution/ liability rights against Champion/ Berkshire
Hathaway in supplemental proceedings.
Defendant contends that the WCJ should not have allowed the election against BBSI/ Ace
American Insurance Company and that new evidence from the panel qualified medical evaluator
(PQME) absolves BBSI/Ace American Insurance Company from liability.
We have not received an Answer from applicant. 	The WCJ prepared a Report and
Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition be
denied.
We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report, and
we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons

2
stated in the WCJ’s report, which we adopt and incorporate, except for the discussion of the
stipulation in the second full paragraph on p. 7, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant
defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the FA&O of September 18, 2025, we will amend the
FA&O to find that the stipulation is not relevant to the issue of applicant’s election, and we will
otherwise affirm the FA&O.
I.
Former Labor Code1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed
denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab.
Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
(a) 	A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals
board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a
case to the appeals board.
(b)
(1) 	When a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board, the trial
judge shall provide notice to the parties of the case and the appeals board.
(2) 	For purposes of paragraph (1), service of the accompanying report,
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5900, shall constitute providing
notice.
Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within
60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in
the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). 	Specifically, in Case Events, under
Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase
“The case is sent to the Recon board.”
Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on September
30, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Saturday, November 29, 2025. The next
business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission Monday, December 1, 2025. (See Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)2 This decision is issued by or on Monday, December 1, 2025, so
that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
1 All further statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise noted.
2 WCAB Rule 10600(b) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b)) states that:
Unless otherwise provided by law, if the last day for exercising or performing any right or duty to act or
respond falls on a weekend, or on a holiday for which the offices of the Workers' Compensation Appeals
Board are closed, the act or response may be performed or exercised upon the next business day.

3
Section 5909(b)(1) requires that the parties and the Appeals Board be provided with notice
of transmission of the case. 	Transmission of the case to the Appeals Board in EAMS provides
notice to the Appeals Board. Thus, the requirement in subdivision (1) ensures that the parties are
notified of the accurate date for the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to
act on a petition. 	Section 5909(b)(2) provides that service of the Report and Recommendation
shall be notice of transmission.
Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers’
compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on September 30, 2025, and the
case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on September 30, 2025. 	Service of the Report and
transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that
the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because
service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as
to the commencement of the 60-day period on September 30, 2025.
II.
Applicant’s election to proceed against defendant BBSI was appropriate. 	Section
5500.5(c) states:
In any case involving a claim of occupational disease or cumulative injury occurring as a
result of more than one employment within the appropriate time period set forth in
subdivision (a), the employee making the claim, or his or her dependents, may elect to
proceed against any one or more of the employers. Where such an election is made, the
employee must successfully prove his or her claim against any one of the employers named,
and any award which the appeals board shall issue awarding compensation benefits shall
be a joint and several award as against any two or more employers who may be held liable
for compensation benefits.
(Lab. Code § 5500.5(c).)
In other words, an employee may “obtain an award for the entire disability against any one
or more of successive employers or successive insurance carriers if the disease and disability were
contributed to by the employment furnished by the employer chosen or during the period covered
by the insurance even though the particular employment is not the sole cause of the disability.
(Colonial Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 79, 82 [11 Cal.Comp.Cases 226].) If
the applicant chooses to elect against one insurer, that insurer can seek contribution from the other
insurers in subsequent supplemental proceedings. 	(Lab. Code § 5500.5(c), (e).) 	There is no

4
requirement that the defendant insurance company consent or stipulate to the election. Therefore,
defendant’s stipulation to the election by applicant in this case is irrelevant.
Accordingly, we grant defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the FA&O of September
18, 2025, and we amend the FA&O to find that the stipulation is not relevant to the issue of
applicant’s election.

5
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings, Award
and Order of September 18, 2025, is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Findings, Award and Order of September 18, 2025,
is AFFIRMED except it is AMENDED as follows:
6. 	The stipulation between BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES INC. / ACE
AMERICAN (administered by CORVEL) and applicant is not relevant to the issue
of applicant’s election.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
/s/ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR
I CONCUR,
/s/ KATHERINE WILLIAMS DODD, COMMISSIONER
/s/ ANNE SCHMITZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER______
DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 1, 2025
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT
THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
ARTURO MADRID
BLACK ROSE LAW FIRM
HALLETT EMERICK LAW FIRM
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JR/pm
I certify that I affixed the official seal of
the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
to this original decision on this date.
BP

6
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I
INTRODUCTION
1. 	Applicant’s Occupation: 	window technician
Applicant is Age: 	62
Date of Injury: 	cumulative to 10/9/23
Parts of Body Injured: 	bilateral shoulders, knees, neck, elbows, wrists
Manner in which injury occurred: 	repetitive work
2. 	Identity of Petitioner: 	Defendant Barrett Business Services Inc.
(BBSI/ACE/CORVEL)
Timeliness: 	timely
Verification: 	verified
3. 	Date of Issuance of Order: 	September 18, 2025
4. 	Date Transmitted to WCAB
per LC 5909: 	September 30, 2025
5. 	Petitioner’s Contentions:
1. 	THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE FINDINGS OF FACT
2. 	NEW 	EVIDENCE 	PQME 	DR. 	MICHAEL 	SHIFFMAN 	SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT 	DATED 	SEPTEMBER 	2, 	2025 	ABSOLVES 	BBSI 	AND 	ACE
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY FROM LIABLITY

7
II
FACTS
The applicant worked as a window technician from January 1, 2010, to October 9, 2023.
He first worked under the name Champion Windows from January 1, 2010, until December 30,
2022, which was insured by Berkshire Hathway from September 1, 2021, to December 30, 2022.
Thereafter, he worked under the name Barrett Business Solutions, Incorporated (BBSI) until his
last date of work on October 9, 2023. BBSI was insured by Ace American administered by Corvel
(BBSI/Ace/Corvel) from December 31, 2022, through October 9, 2023. Applicant filed for
cumulative trauma injuries to the shoulders, knees, neck, elbows, and wrists using an end date of
April 1, 2023, on April 3, 2023. Berkshire denied the claim on June 2, 2023.1 (Def. Ex. L denial
letter Berkshire Hathway 6/2/23) BBSI/Ace/Corvel also denied the claim on October 2, 2023,
based on “we have no evidence to support your claim of industrial injury.” (App. Ex. 15 Corvel
Denial 10/2/23) Applicant’s counsel amended the end-date to October 9, 2023, the last date of
work. (Def. Ex. R Amended App 10.9.23)
Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Dr. Michael Shiffman issued reports in February and
August of 2024. (App. Ex. 19, 18) Thereafter, BBSI/ACE/Corvel accepted the claim with regard
to the shoulders on May 14, 2025.2 (Court Ex. Y Corvel Acceptance letter 5/14/25) On June 2,
2025, the applicant filed for an expedited hearing on the issue of total temporary disability and
treatment. 	(DOR 	CSP 	law 	5/31/25) 	The 	treatment 	issue 	became 	moot 	as 	Defendant
BBSI/Ace/Corvel accepted the bilateral shoulders claim and authorized treatment with Dr. Ronny
Ghazal. (Def. Ex T acceptance letter 6/5/25, Court Ex. Y)
Temporary disability remained at issue as applicant was relying on the treating physician
and QME Dr. Shiffman’s reporting to claim temporary disability benefits as the applicant had
already exhausted one year of EDD benefits. (MOH 6/30/25, pg. 3:6) The expedited hearing finally
began at 11:43a.m.3 as reflected in the Minutes of Hearing. One of the stipulations listed on the
1 Although the denial letter heading refers to a 12/30/22 date of injury; the body of the letter refers to a 4/1/23 neck
and shoulder claim which is at issue for the cumulative claim in this case.
2 It appears Corvel’s letter still used the date of injury 4/1/23 in spite of the amendment that occurred and in spite of
Dr. Shiffman’s reports using the October 9, 2023 end date.
3 The delay in starting the expedited was due to the completion of the pre-trial conference statement. Earnings were
initially listed as a dispute. However, defense counsel had not calculated her claimed earnings for the applicant even
though parties had placed earnings in dispute. In addition, the defendant attempted to obtain authority for a permanent
disability advance to resolve the issue pending the deposition of Dr. Michael Shiffman which at that time was

8
pre-trial conference statement was that “Applicant elects against Corvel and BBSI (Ace
American).” (pre-trial conference statement dated 6.30.25, Other Stipulations, paragraph 7) As a
result of the stipulated election, counsel for Berkshire Hathaway was excused. (MOH 6/30/25 p.
2:21-22) The court read the stipulations into the record including the stipulation to the election and
both applicant’s counsel and defense counsel for BBSI/Ace/Corvel responded in the affirmative
on the record that the stipulations were correct as reflected in the court reporter’s notes.4
(MOH/SOE 8/27/25 pg.3:9-11.5)
However, defense counsel for BBSI/Ace/Corvel later requested to unilaterally withdraw
from the stipulation. 	Applicant’s counsel did not agree to withdraw from the election as
BBSI/Ace/Corvel had accepted the shoulder claim and he had filed for an expedited hearing. As
the unelected-against defendant (Berkshire Hathaway) denied the claim in its entirety, applicant
would not have been able to proceed to an expedited hearing against Berkshire. 	(MOH/SOE
6/30/25 pg.13:6-17) The progress reports from the treating physician spanning from October 12,
2023, to January 10, 2025, and QME Shiffman indicated that the applicant was totally temporarily
disabled and had not reached permanent and stationary status and that the body parts in dispute
were industrial. (App Ex. 1-13, Ex.18 and 19) QME. Shiffman noted that the applicant was a
potential candidate for arthroscopic surgery for the shoulders and knees. (QME Dr. Shiffman
report 8/1/24 pg. 9) QME Dr. Steven Brourman also indicated that the applicant’s knees and
shoulders were industrial. (Def Ex. S Dr. Brourman, 3/26/24 report pg. 26, 1st paragraph)
The court found the disputed body parts to be industrial and awarded total temporary
disability. 	The defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration on the basis of newly discovered
evidence. (a supplemental report from QME Shiffman which purportedly finds that the cumulative
trauma extended only until October 14, 2021.)
III
DISCUSSION
Any alleged deficiencies in the Opinion on Decision are corrected by this Report on
Reconsideration. Smales v. WCAB 45 Cal. Comp. Cases 1026.
scheduled on August 21, 2025. Defendant was not able to secure enough authority. (MOH/SOE 6.30.25; issue 5,
pg.4:19-21)
4 Due to technical difficulties, the court reporter’s machine was not able to upload the proceedings from the morning
session on June 30, 2025, but the court reporter was able to pull up the notes on August 27, 2025.

9
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE STANDARD NOT MET UNDER CCR 10974
Before addressing the merits of the petition, this court is of the opinion that the petition
should be denied as it does not comply with CCR 10974. CCR 10974 provides in relevant part
that where reconsideration is sought on the ground of newly discovered evidence that could not
with reasonable diligence have been produced before submission of the case….. the petition must
contain an offer of proof, specific, and detailed, providing:
(d) 	The effect that the evidence will have on the record and on the prior decision and
(e) 	As to newly discovered evidence, a full and accurate statement of the reasons why
the testimony or exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered or produced
before submission of the case. 	(emphasis by court)
The rule concludes with “A petition for reconsideration sought upon these grounds may be denied
if it fails to meet the requirements of this rule or if it is based on cumulative evidence.”
Here, the petitioner offers the September 2, 2025, medical report of QME Michael
Shiffman. However, 	petitioner does not provide any 	statement 	of the reasons 	why this
supplemental report could not have reasonably been produced before the submission of the case.
Therefore, the petition should be denied. 	Moreover, petitioner has not acted with reasonable
diligence in obtaining this report. The court highlights that the medical reports of QME Shiffman
are dated February 2024 and August 2024 respectively. These reports are well over a year old.
Petitioner has not shown reasonable diligence by waiting over a year to request a supplemental
report. Accordingly, the Petition should be denied.
Next, even assuming arguendo the report should be admitted, the medical report has no
effect on the decision. This report does not change the applicant’s total temporary disability status.
QME Shiffman has made no indication that applicant is no longer totally temporarily disabled nor
changed in his opinion with regard to which body parts were injured on a cumulative trauma basis
as a result of his duties as a window technician. 	Therefore, this report is of no consequence in
those regards.
Petitioner appears to offer this report as an attempt to determine liability between the
defendants which this court has not determined. This court made no finding of date of injury nor
finding of percentages of liability. The court issued a joint and several award with regard to total

10
temporary disability and body parts injured. 	The liability will be determined in supplemental
proceedings between the respective employers and carriers.
Lastly, even assuming that this report did have an effect on the decision, it is not clear if it
even contains an accurate history to be substantial evidence on liability. The report states,
The records I previously reviewed indicated that the patient had been evaluated and
provided treatment for a specific date of injury, September 22, 2021. This claim had
eventually settled on November 14, 2022. According to the settlement, there had been a
period of disability from October 15, 2021 to April 14, 2022.
According to the records I reviewed the patient had been placed on modified work by
multiple physicians. It is unclear what periods of time the patient had actually been
working at modified duties as a report from Dr. Darakjian dated February 16, 2022 merely
stated there was no work. A February 28, 2022, report from Dr. Rafla stated the patient
was off work per the PTP. A report from Dr. Yaghoubian dated March 21, 2022, stated the
patient was on modified duties, however the restrictions were not being accommodated.
Dr. Yaghoubian had stated in his July 25, 2022 report that the patient was being returned
to full duty work and Dr. Yaghoubian had determined the patient to be permanent and
stationary on October 3, 2022 again returning the patient to full duty work. However, the
patient was then seen by Dr. Kim in May 2023, who provided work restrictions. Dr. Mojabe
also provided work restrictions beginning November 22, 2023 and continuing to May 1,
2024.
It would appear from this information that the period of continuous trauma extended only
until October 12, 2021 as thereafter the patient had either been placed on modified duty
work or was off work altogether. 	(Dr. Shiffman 9.2.25 report at pg.2 paragraph 5 & 6)
On the one hand, Dr. Shiffman indicated that the applicant was on modified duties but that he was
not being accommodated. 	It is undisputed that the applicant worked until October 2023.
(MOH/SOE pg. 11:10; App. Ex. 13, Dr. Guevara 10/12/23 TD slip) No evidence was provided on
whether the restrictions were actually accommodated. 	Therefore, applicant might have been
working outside his restrictions. However, even if the applicant was working modified duties, the
report of Dr. Brourman5 offered by BBSI/Ace/Corvel in this case still found the modified duties
to be a contributory cause,
In contrast, while working modified duties, the patient did not continue to perform
repetitive reaching activities and persistent ambulation, and he has degenerative tears in
the medical menisci of both knees. It is reasonable to conclude that the knees would have
been symptomatic with the meniscal tears. There I also evidence of clinical impingement
5 Minutes of Hearing August 27, 2025 pg.3:20-21.5

11
syndrome of both shoulders and this would likely have been painful during the course and
scope of work activities.
(Def Ex. S Dr. Brourman 3.26.24 report pg. 26 1st paragraph)
Therefore, even if arguably the applicant worked modified duties, based on Dr. Brourman’s
reporting, it appears those duties were sufficient to cause cumulative trauma to the knees and
shoulders. Dr. Shiffman has not provided an explanation as to how and why the modified duties
would not have contributed to the applicant’s injury assuming applicant was being accommodated
in the first place.
Again, this report potentially goes to the liability between the defendants, and the award of
total temporary disability and body parts are not affected. 	Accordingly, the newly discovered
evidence has no effect on the decision and should not be admitted.
Contention 1. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
ELECTION
The petitioner contends that the WCJ’s opinion did not set forth the arguments advanced
by the parties or the evidence relied upon by the WCJ in determining to accept applicant’s election
pursuant to L.C. 5500.5. In addressing the election issue, the court provides overview of the case
law regarding stipulations and an election.
Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are
given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 290, 65
Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) As defined in Weatherall, "A stipulation is 'An agreement between opposing
counsel ... ordinarily entered into for the purpose of avoiding delay, trouble, or expense in the
conduct of the action,' (Ballentine, Law Dict. (1930) p. 1235, col. 2) and serves 'to obviate need
for proof or to narrow range of litigable issues' (Black's Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990) p. 1415, col. 1)
in a legal proceeding." (Weatherall, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 1119.)
With regard to an election against a defendant, Select Personnel Services v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (Ibarra) 78 Cal. Comp. Cases 804, the Appeals Board panel found that an
election against the last employer is proper under Labor Code Section [5500.5(c)] and noted that
when an against the last employer is proper under Labor Code Section 5500.5(c) and noted that
when an award is made against an elected-against employer under Labor Code § 5500.5(c),

12
An election against a defendant has been allowed even when only having 2.5 percent of
coverage. Mendez v. Koos Mfg. 2017 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 41.
[…]
Even so, as evidenced by Mendez majority of coverage is not controlling. There has been
no determination as to the liability between the defendants on the claim. 	As the panel decision
Select Personnel provides that an election can be made against the last employer and as
BBSI/Ace/Corvel was the last employer, the applicant’s election was proper, regardless of whether
the defendant had stipulated to the election or not, and regardless of whether the other defendant
allegedly had majority coverage.
Moreover, petitioner neglects to state that BBSI/Ace/Corvel accepted liability to the
shoulders, which is what prompted the applicant’s attorney to elect against them in the first place
in order to be able to proceed to an expedited hearing, as the other defendant Champion/Berkshire
had denied the claim. (Court Ex. Y, MOH/SOE ) Accordingly, even disregarding the stipulation
on election, there was good cause for applicant’s election against BBSI/Ace/Corvel as 1) the
applicant wished to proceed to expedited hearing, 2) was not receiving temporary disability
benefits, 3) had exhausted EDD benefits, and 4) had been found totally temporary disabled by the
treating physicians and QME Michael Shiffman. Accordingly, the court was justified in accepting
the parties; stipulation and even assuming arguendo that BBSI/Ace/Corvel had been let out of the
stipulation, the court would have still been justified in accepting the applicant’s election under
L.C. 5500.5(c) over BBSI/Ace/Corvel’s objection.
Contention 2. NEW EVIDENCE PQME DR. MICHAEL SHIFFMAN SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 ABSOLVES BBSI AND ACE AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY FROM LIABLITY
As previously discussed above, this court has made no determination of liability. It issued
a joint and several award as required with BBSI/Ace/Corvel to administer it based on the
applicant’s election against the last employer BBSI/Ace/Corvel. Any arguments with regards to
BBSI/Ace/Corvel’s percentage of liability, or lack thereof, can be resolved in supplemental
contribution proceedings.

13
IV
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the petition be denied.
DATE: September 26, 2025 	Monika Reyes
WORKERS' COMPENSATION JUDGE