California WCABLaw firm
County of Los Angeles County Counsel
County of Los Angeles County Counsel is named in 14 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Apportionment (1) and Death benefits (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Fresno.
- Decisions
- 14
- Years
- 2021–2025
- Issues disputed
- 7
- District offices
- 6
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 14 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.
- ADJ10534368 · 2024-10-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on July 17, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained industrial injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his cervical spine, elbows, wrists, left knee, ankles hypertensive heart disease, arrhythmia, psyche, and left arm while employed by the defendant, causing permanent total disability of 100%, less reasonable attorney's fees of 18%.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ6609179 · 2024-05-16 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 2, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant failed in his "affirmative duty to produce detailed records showing services and dates rendered for the home health care services provided", and thus ordered that applicant take nothing further as reimbursement for such services.
Applicant failed to produce detailed records for home health care services, leading to denial of reimbursement; however, the matter was returned to WCJ for further proceedings to create a complete record.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14990392 · 2023-01-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In order to further study the factual and legal issues in this matter, on January 13, 2023, we granted defendant Petition for Reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Partial Findings, Award and Order of October 24, 2022, wherein it was found that while employed as a fire captain during a cumulative period ending on March 28, 2016, applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of asthma causing permanent disability of 25%. The WCJ found that applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.
Defendant failed to meet burden to prove claim barred by statute of limitations because it did not show when applicant first sustained compensable disability; applicant did not know injury was work related until about August 3, 2021; application was timely filed on August 4, 2021.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ9313954 · 2021-11-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Applicant has pled injury in the form of a sleep disorder. Defendant disputes compensability for this condition. Section 4062.2 governs the process to obtain a medical-legal evaluation from a panel QME in a represented case if the parties do not agree on an AME. (Lab. Code, § 4062.2.) In the absence of an additional panel in neurology, applicant is prevented from conducting necessary medical-legal discovery to meet her burden of proof to show compensability for her sleep disorder. We therefore agree with applicant that an additional QME panel in neurology is warranted. (See McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906 [the Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues].)
Applicant showed good cause for an additional QME panel in neurology to evaluate her sleep disorder, and the WCAB found that the absence of such a panel prevented necessary medical-legal discovery to meet the burden of proof for compensability.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ11784547 · 2021-11-05 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6At the time of trial, the parties stipulated that applicant, while an inmate (OGN 460) on October 1, 2018, (ADJ11784547) at Los Angeles California by the County of Los Angeles at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his alleged employment (AOE/COE) to his lumbar spine, tailbone or coccyx, head neck and bilateral shoulders, and again on July 21, 2019, (ADJ12536627) to his right foot and toes, right lower extremity.
Applicant was assigned to kitchen duty as a condition of incarceration, not by voluntary agreement or contract; no consent or consideration existed, and statutory compulsion negates an employment relationship.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ12048035 · 2021-08-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3On June 14, 2021, the Defendant filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated June 14, 2021, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Findings of Fact & Award dated May 24, 2021. The Defendant contends that the independent medical review reports and deposition testimony of Jeffrey A. Hirsch, M.D., finding that the Applicant did not sustain industrial injury, should be binding on the parties notwithstanding Dr. Hirsch's failure to rebut the presumption of compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 3212.1. In addition, the Defendant contends that Dr. Hirsch's opinion that the Applicant is permanently totally disabled is not substantial medical evidence because his cancer is not in remission.
The WCJ found that the applicant met the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code 3212.1 and that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption with substantial medical evidence, including the opinion of Dr. Hirsch, which was found not to rebut the presumption.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ12011890 · 2021-06-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6In this case, the primary issue presented at trial was whether the decedent's January 23, 2019 motor vehicle accident returning from a medical treatment appointment was causally connected to an industrial injury on July 16, 2018 to his lumbar spine, right hip and right knee, resulting in a compensable consequence.
The WCJ's findings that the decedent's fatal motor vehicle accident on January 23, 2019 was a compensable consequence of his industrial injury were supported by credible evidence including medical reports and testimony, outweighing defendant's contrary billing records and depositions.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ8845585 · 2025-10-09 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on July 27, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
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, and noted the issue appeared moot as no trial setting was pursued during the petition pendency.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ334261 · 2024-03-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.2Preliminarily, we note that the issue of applicant's entitlement to SIBTF benefits was initially set for trial on June 15, 2016. The parties were given until July 15, 2016 to submit points and authorities regarding the issue of SIBTF liability, whereupon the matter would be submitted. Points and authorities were timely submitted by applicant and by SIBTF. However, on August 10, 2016, the WCJ issued an Order Vacating Submission and Ordering Further Discovery. "Specifically," wrote the WCJ in his Order, "the parties are to elicit an opinion from the AME, Dr. Plesons, whether Applicant had a preexisting labor disabling permanent disability, prior to the industrial injury." At an August 17, 2016 hearing, it was noted that "SIBTF will write letter to doctor." Nevertheless, despite the fact that the WCJ found that further development of the record was necessary, the fact that defendant was designated to contact Dr. Plesons, and the fact that applicant carries the burden of proof on the issue {Brown v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 903, 915 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 627]), no further evidence was procured or admitted into the evidentiary record.
The record was previously found inadequate to determine whether applicant had a pre-existing labor-disabling permanent disability; no further evidence was procured despite the order to develop the record, and the WCJ's decision lacked adequate explanation. The Appeals Board rescinded the decision and remanded for further development of the record.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ8302918 · 2023-11-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) seeks reconsideration of the August 10, 2023 Findings of Fact, Order & Award, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's SIBTF claim was not time barred.
The WCJ properly applied the Talcott two-prong test for timeliness of SIBTF claims, finding no statute of limitations bar because the applicant filed within a reasonable time after learning of probable liability from the WCAB's findings. The Board found no evidence to disturb the WCJ's credibility findings and no Board finding of permanent disability existed to trigger the limitations period earlier.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ6609179 · 2023-10-23 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 2, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant, failed in his "affirmative duty to produce detailed records per Labor Code section "4307.8"1 and the case of Neri Hernandez v. Geneva Staffing, Inc. dba Workforce Outsourcing, Inc. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 682 (Appeals Board en banc) (Neri Hernandez), to produce detailed records showing services and dates rendered for the home health care services provided, and thus ordered that applicant take nothing further as reimbursement for such services.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's decision lacked sufficient record development and legal clarity, warranting reconsideration and further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10739154 · 2023-08-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Here, the February 17, 2023 Order Denying Request to Change Trial to MSC and Continued Denial of Request for Virtual Hearing is solely an intermediate procedural order. It does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision. Therefore, the petitions will be dismissed to the extent they seek reconsideration.
The petitions were dismissed because the order challenged was not a final order, the petition for removal was untimely, and the petition for disqualification was both insufficiently supported and untimely.
Official decision · page 2 →
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.
- LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL
- County of Los Angeles County Counsel
- LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
- City Attorney of Los Angeles
- USCB AMERICA LAW LOS ANGELES
- LOS ANGELES CITY ATTTORNEY
- LOS ANGELES LAWYER, PC
- OD LEGAL – LOS ANGELES
- OD LEGAL, LOS ANGELES
- OD LEGAL LOS ANGELES
- LOS ANGELES LAWYER
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.