California WCABLaw firm

Alvandi Law Group

Alvandi Law Group is named in 14 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Earnings / average weekly earnings (1) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Santa Ana, then Bakersfield. The firm it meets most often is Albert and Mackenzie (1).

Decisions: 14
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 9

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 of 8 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

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

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Santa Ana 4
Bakersfield 2
Lodi 2
Anaheim 1
Fresno 1
Marina del Rey 1
Pomona 1
San Francisco 1
Van Nuys 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 defense
3 for the applicant
2 returned for more record

Counted over 13 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.

ADJ17085228 · 2026-02-02 · Pomona District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Here, as explained above, applicant and/or their attorney were not required to attend the lien conference. Hence, one of the bases for the NIT, the alleged failure to appear, was legally incorrect rendering the NIT void. Because the NIT is void, the Order is void, and we will rescind it.
Applicant's attorney was not required to appear at the lien conference under WCAB rules, so the basis for sanctions was legally incorrect and the order was void.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ19596609 · 2025-10-29 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on September 29, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner and therefore dismissed
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17464637 · 2025-10-28 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On July 11, 2025, defendant timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration. On July 14, 2025, the WCJ rescinded the OACR and separately issued an amended OACR. On July 18, 2025, defendant filed a request to withdraw the Petition for Reconsideration. On July 29, 2025, defendant filed another request to withdraw the Petition for Reconsideration. On September 5, 2025, the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation (Report), recommending that we grant reconsideration and transmitted the case to the Appeals Board. WCAB Rule 10961 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961) provides that jurisdiction remains with the district office for 15 days after the timely filing of a petition for reconsideration and sets
The WCJ timely rescinded and amended the original order within the 15-day jurisdiction period, rendering the petition moot and requiring dismissal by the Appeals Board.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16246113 · 2025-09-15 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on July 8, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ ordered defendant to serve on cost petitioner its market rate guidelines if a market rate has been established, and to provide the name of the person most knowledgeable as to its market rate guidelines.
The WCJ's order was interlocutory and not a final order, so reconsideration was dismissed. Removal was denied because defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The work-product privilege was not established at trial and was waived on appeal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15802678 · 2024-09-24 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.1Accordingly, the petition for removal is now moot, and we will dismiss the petition.
The petition for removal became moot after the final WCJ decision was issued following trial, so the WCAB dismissed the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17926934 · 2024-07-22 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we dismiss defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the Joint Order Suspending Action is an interim order and not a final order subject to reconsideration. Also based on this review, and for reasons set forth below and based on the Report, which we adopt and incorporate herein we deny defendant's Petition for Removal.
The Joint Order Suspending Action is an interim procedural order, not a final order, and thus not subject to reconsideration. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16200503 · 2024-06-10 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, filed a Petition for Removal on December 5, 2022, contending:
The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal because the applicant's inability to file a Declaration of Readiness for an expedited hearing was not an interim or non-final order, and dismissed the Petition for Disqualification because the applicant failed to allege specific facts showing judicial bias and did not follow the required procedure under WCAB Rule 10960.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16699262 · 2024-04-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14201895 · 2023-05-12 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Defendant alleges the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers and the evidence does not justify the findings of fact. Defendant based this on the belief that the undersigned did not review Defendant's trial brief and that the decision was inconsistent with applicable law. The cost petitioner does not specify on which basis it has filed the Petition for Reconsideration, but one could infer that they are alleging the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers when the undersigned excluded proffered exhibits. Cost Petitioner alleges the excluded exhibits were material to the determination of bad faith and that vacating the decision and submission is necessary to allow new evidence that was not available at the time of trial. Both parties failed to state facts that would support the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers or that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact.
The petitions for reconsideration were denied because the parties failed to show the WCJ acted without or in excess of powers or that the evidence did not justify the findings of fact. New arguments not raised at trial were rejected, and excluded evidence was found not material to bad faith determination.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ15497038 · 2022-04-07 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9082866 · 2021-12-01 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and Disqualification and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny the Petition for Removal and Disqualification.
The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under the legal standards to establish grounds for removal or disqualification of the WCJ.
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.

ALVANDI LAW
ALVANDI LAW GROUP, P.C.
Alvandi Law Group
ALVANDI LAW GROUP
ALVANDI LAW GROUP, PC
Alvandi Law Firm
Alvandi Law

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 →

Alvandi Law Group

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

10 for the defense

3 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ17085228 · 2026-02-02 · Pomona District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Here, as explained above, applicant and/or their attorney were not required to attend the lien conference. Hence, one of the bases for the NIT, the alleged failure to appear, was legally incorrect rendering the NIT void. Because the NIT is void, the Order is void, and we will rescind it.

Applicant's attorney was not required to appear at the lien conference under WCAB rules, so the basis for sanctions was legally incorrect and the order was void.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ19596609 · 2025-10-29 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on September 29, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner and therefore dismissed

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17464637 · 2025-10-28 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On July 11, 2025, defendant timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration. On July 14, 2025, the WCJ rescinded the OACR and separately issued an amended OACR. On July 18, 2025, defendant filed a request to withdraw the Petition for Reconsideration. On July 29, 2025, defendant filed another request to withdraw the Petition for Reconsideration. On September 5, 2025, the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation (Report), recommending that we grant reconsideration and transmitted the case to the Appeals Board. WCAB Rule 10961 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961) provides that jurisdiction remains with the district office for 15 days after the timely filing of a petition for reconsideration and sets

The WCJ timely rescinded and amended the original order within the 15-day jurisdiction period, rendering the petition moot and requiring dismissal by the Appeals Board.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16246113 · 2025-09-15 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on July 8, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ ordered defendant to serve on cost petitioner its market rate guidelines if a market rate has been established, and to provide the name of the person most knowledgeable as to its market rate guidelines.

The WCJ's order was interlocutory and not a final order, so reconsideration was dismissed. Removal was denied because defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The work-product privilege was not established at trial and was waived on appeal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15802678 · 2024-09-24 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

Determinative passage · p.1Accordingly, the petition for removal is now moot, and we will dismiss the petition.

The petition for removal became moot after the final WCJ decision was issued following trial, so the WCAB dismissed the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17926934 · 2024-07-22 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we dismiss defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the Joint Order Suspending Action is an interim order and not a final order subject to reconsideration. Also based on this review, and for reasons set forth below and based on the Report, which we adopt and incorporate herein we deny defendant's Petition for Removal.

The Joint Order Suspending Action is an interim procedural order, not a final order, and thus not subject to reconsideration. The petition was dismissed accordingly.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16200503 · 2024-06-10 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, filed a Petition for Removal on December 5, 2022, contending:

The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal because the applicant's inability to file a Declaration of Readiness for an expedited hearing was not an interim or non-final order, and dismissed the Petition for Disqualification because the applicant failed to allege specific facts showing judicial bias and did not follow the required procedure under WCAB Rule 10960.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16699262 · 2024-04-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14201895 · 2023-05-12 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Defendant alleges the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers and the evidence does not justify the findings of fact. Defendant based this on the belief that the undersigned did not review Defendant's trial brief and that the decision was inconsistent with applicable law. The cost petitioner does not specify on which basis it has filed the Petition for Reconsideration, but one could infer that they are alleging the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers when the undersigned excluded proffered exhibits. Cost Petitioner alleges the excluded exhibits were material to the determination of bad faith and that vacating the decision and submission is necessary to allow new evidence that was not available at the time of trial. Both parties failed to state facts that would support the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers or that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact.

The petitions for reconsideration were denied because the parties failed to show the WCJ acted without or in excess of powers or that the evidence did not justify the findings of fact. New arguments not raised at trial were rejected, and excluded evidence was found not material to bad faith determination.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ15497038 · 2022-04-07 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9082866 · 2021-12-01 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and Disqualification and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny the Petition for Removal and Disqualification.

The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under the legal standards to establish grounds for removal or disqualification of the WCJ.

Official decision · page 1 →