California WCABLaw firm

AGM Law Offices

AGM Law Offices is named in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Discrimination under Labor Code §132a (1), Penalties under Labor Code §5814 (1) and Statute of limitations (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then San Francisco. The firm it meets most often is Jones Clifford (2).

Decisions: 5
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 3

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 4 of 5 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

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

Carriers and administrators

The Cities Group2

Where they appear

Oakland 2
San Francisco 2
Stockton 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.

3 for the applicant
1 for the defense
1 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.

ADJ12963083 · 2026-03-06 · Stockton District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded
Determinative passage · p.12Accordingly, given that the WCJ's decision in this case (ADJ12963083) to bar applicant's claim based on the statute of limitations is not based on admitted evidence or substantial evidence, it must be our decision after reconsideration to rescind the F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further development of the record consistent with this decision. We affirm the WCJ's decision to dismiss applicant's claim in ADJ13167130 pursuant to the parties' stipulation.
The WCAB found that the WCJ's decision barring the claim based on statute of limitations was not supported by substantial evidence and rescinded it, returning the matter for further proceedings. The WCJ had found the claim barred because applicant knew or should have known of the injury earlier, but the WCAB found the date of injury to be the QME report date, making the claim timely.
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ12212593 · 2023-07-10 · Oakland District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In its March 20, 2023 order denying defendant's Petition for Writ of Review (No. A165531), the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) remanded this matter to the Appeals Board to make a supplemental award of reasonable attorney fees to the attorney for respondent (applicant), based upon services rendered in connection with defendant's petition for writ of review. (Lab. Code, § 5801; Crown Appliance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wong) (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 620, 627-628 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 55, 60-61]; Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rodriguez) (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 104, 108-109 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 167, 169-170].) The court's order has become final.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6831983 · 2022-12-14 · San Francisco District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant San Mateo County Transit District (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the August 16, 2022 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a bus operator on September 11, 2008, sustained industrial injury to her back, right knee and psyche. The WCJ determined that the correct date of commencement of permanent total disability benefits was June 13, 2009, the day following the last payment of temporary total disability. The WCJ further determined that defendant's failure to timely pay accrued benefits triggered the statutory increase of Labor Code section 4650(d), and warranted the imposition of penalties for unreasonable delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5814.1 The WCJ also awarded attorney fees pursuant to section 5814.5 and statutory interest.
The Board found that permanent total disability benefits must commence retroactive to the last date of temporary disability (June 12, 2009) regardless of the date the applicant was declared permanent and stationary, based on Labor Code section 4650 and the Brower decision. The defendant's delay in payment triggered statutory increases, penalties, interest, and attorney fees, which were affirmed except for an amendment to the commutation method of attorney fees.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12212593 · 2022-05-17 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In the Petition for Reconsideration, defendant argues that there is no evidence to support the finding that applicant would have continued to work but for her left knee injury and need for surgery. This is incorrect. In uncontroverted testimony, applicant testified that she retired because she was not able to perform the duties of her job as a bus driver due to her left knee injury. (See Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Testimony 10-01-2020, hereinafter "MOH/SOE," at p. 6, lines 1-5 and lines 23-24; p. 7, lines 4-8.) Applicant testified that as the result of the left knee injury, she cannot climb stairs or "get on her knees to fully do her job." (Id., at 7, lines 1-6.) She wants the left knee surgery prescribed by her treating physician Dr. Donald Pang. (Id., at 5, lines 5-8.) The denial of the knee surgery by defendant which was requested by Dr. Pang in an RFA of 08-11- 2020 was an issue for trial. At the time of trial, the surgery remained denied.
Applicant retired early due to left knee injury and inability to perform job duties; medical evidence and credible testimony support entitlement to temporary disability continuing after retirement.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ6831983 · 2023-06-16 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have received defendant's Answer. We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and the Answer. We observe that on April 7, 2023, defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 with the California Court of Appeal, in the First Appellate District. Among the issues raised in defendant's petition was the timeliness of its petition for writ of review, based on defendant's allegation of incomplete service of our December 14, 2022 O&O. (Defendant's Petition for Writ of Review, dated April 7, 2023, at p. 19.) We defer to the Court of Appeal as to whether defendant's Petition for Writ of Review was timely. Based on our review of the record, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration has been rendered moot by the April 7, 2023 Petition for Writ of Review filed by defendant, and we will dismiss the petition accordingly.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as moot because the defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review with the Court of Appeal, which superseded the reconsideration petition.
Official decision · page 1 →

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 →

AGM Law Offices

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

1 for the defense

1 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.

ADJ12963083 · 2026-03-06 · Stockton District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

Determinative passage · p.12Accordingly, given that the WCJ's decision in this case (ADJ12963083) to bar applicant's claim based on the statute of limitations is not based on admitted evidence or substantial evidence, it must be our decision after reconsideration to rescind the F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further development of the record consistent with this decision. We affirm the WCJ's decision to dismiss applicant's claim in ADJ13167130 pursuant to the parties' stipulation.

The WCAB found that the WCJ's decision barring the claim based on statute of limitations was not supported by substantial evidence and rescinded it, returning the matter for further proceedings. The WCJ had found the claim barred because applicant knew or should have known of the injury earlier, but the WCAB found the date of injury to be the QME report date, making the claim timely.

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ12212593 · 2023-07-10 · Oakland District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In its March 20, 2023 order denying defendant's Petition for Writ of Review (No. A165531), the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) remanded this matter to the Appeals Board to make a supplemental award of reasonable attorney fees to the attorney for respondent (applicant), based upon services rendered in connection with defendant's petition for writ of review. (Lab. Code, § 5801; Crown Appliance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wong) (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 620, 627-628 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 55, 60-61]; Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rodriguez) (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 104, 108-109 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 167, 169-170].) The court's order has become final.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6831983 · 2022-12-14 · San Francisco District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant San Mateo County Transit District (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the August 16, 2022 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a bus operator on September 11, 2008, sustained industrial injury to her back, right knee and psyche. The WCJ determined that the correct date of commencement of permanent total disability benefits was June 13, 2009, the day following the last payment of temporary total disability. The WCJ further determined that defendant's failure to timely pay accrued benefits triggered the statutory increase of Labor Code section 4650(d), and warranted the imposition of penalties for unreasonable delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5814.1 The WCJ also awarded attorney fees pursuant to section 5814.5 and statutory interest.

The Board found that permanent total disability benefits must commence retroactive to the last date of temporary disability (June 12, 2009) regardless of the date the applicant was declared permanent and stationary, based on Labor Code section 4650 and the Brower decision. The defendant's delay in payment triggered statutory increases, penalties, interest, and attorney fees, which were affirmed except for an amendment to the commutation method of attorney fees.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12212593 · 2022-05-17 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In the Petition for Reconsideration, defendant argues that there is no evidence to support the finding that applicant would have continued to work but for her left knee injury and need for surgery. This is incorrect. In uncontroverted testimony, applicant testified that she retired because she was not able to perform the duties of her job as a bus driver due to her left knee injury. (See Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Testimony 10-01-2020, hereinafter "MOH/SOE," at p. 6, lines 1-5 and lines 23-24; p. 7, lines 4-8.) Applicant testified that as the result of the left knee injury, she cannot climb stairs or "get on her knees to fully do her job." (Id., at 7, lines 1-6.) She wants the left knee surgery prescribed by her treating physician Dr. Donald Pang. (Id., at 5, lines 5-8.) The denial of the knee surgery by defendant which was requested by Dr. Pang in an RFA of 08-11- 2020 was an issue for trial. At the time of trial, the surgery remained denied.

Applicant retired early due to left knee injury and inability to perform job duties; medical evidence and credible testimony support entitlement to temporary disability continuing after retirement.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ6831983 · 2023-06-16 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have received defendant's Answer. We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and the Answer. We observe that on April 7, 2023, defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 with the California Court of Appeal, in the First Appellate District. Among the issues raised in defendant's petition was the timeliness of its petition for writ of review, based on defendant's allegation of incomplete service of our December 14, 2022 O&O. (Defendant's Petition for Writ of Review, dated April 7, 2023, at p. 19.) We defer to the Court of Appeal as to whether defendant's Petition for Writ of Review was timely. Based on our review of the record, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration has been rendered moot by the April 7, 2023 Petition for Writ of Review filed by defendant, and we will dismiss the petition accordingly.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as moot because the defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review with the Court of Appeal, which superseded the reconsideration petition.

Official decision · page 1 →