California WCABLaw firm

Dorman & Suarez

Dorman & Suarez is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (5), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2) and Cumulative trauma (1). They were heard most often at Anaheim, then Long Beach. The firm it meets most often is Glauber Berenson Vego (2).

Decisions: 9
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 6

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

2 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

Anaheim 2
Long Beach 2
Van Nuys 2
Los Angeles 1
Marina del Rey 1
Oxnard 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.

4 for the applicant
3 for the defense
3 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ11665067 · 2025-09-29 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The March 25, 2019 report of orthopedic QME Dr. Mikhael diagnosed applicant as having sustained injury to the lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, and right hand and wrist. (Ex. 25, Report of Mark Mikhael, M.D., dated March 25, 2019, at p. 9.) The QME concluded that "[i]t is within [a] reasonable degree of medical probability that the injury sustained by the examinee arose out of the course of employment due to cumulative trauma from the dates of October 24, 2013 to October 24, 2018." (Ibid.) Thus, the QME has identified injury AOE/COE.
The medical evidence from QME Dr. Mikhael and treating physician Dr. Bazel uniformly supports injury AOE/COE, and defendants offered no rebuttal evidence; the WCJ's requirement for applicant testimony was not supported by law as substantial evidence supports injury AOE/COE.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12032540 · 2024-11-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.5The WCJ rejected Dr. Perry's opinions because there was no evidence that the applicant was taking NSAIDs or steroids around the time of the stroke. Indeed, the record shows that decedent was taken off prednisone and naproxen in early 2015 and was allergic to ibuprofen. Nevertheless, the WCJ does not appear to evaluate Dr. Perry's opinion that even if decedent stopped taking medications increasing blood pressure in 2015, it could have still contributed to the 2018 stroke. We thus believe that the record should be developed on this issue, and the issue
The WCJ rejected the industrial causation of the stroke due to lack of evidence of medication use near the stroke date, but the WCAB found the record insufficient and ordered further development to clarify the causative link and medical probability of the medications contributing to the stroke.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ11418472 · 2024-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In case number ADJ11418472, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant, while employed by defendant on December 7, 2017, as a warehouse worker/loader, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right elbow; that she was permanent and stationary on August 20, 2018; that she was entitled to future medical treatment; and that the injury did not cause permanent disability. In case number ADJ11418473, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant while employed by defendant during the period July 26, 2017 to July 26, 2018, sustained injury AOE/COE to her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, hips and knees; that she was entitled to future medical treatment; and that she is "entitled to a permanent disability award (after apportionment) of sixty two percent (67%)."
The WCJ found the injury to the right elbow arose out of and in the course of employment based on the evidence presented.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11449146 · 2023-11-27 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5.... Applicant did not sustain his burden of proof in proving medical necessity of the disputed treatment
Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof by substantial medical evidence to show the medical necessity of the treatment requested in the October 28, 2021 RFA. The evidence was largely boilerplate, non-responsive, and did not incorporate relevant medical reports. Defendant's evidence was more thorough and cured prior defects, outweighing Applicant's evidence.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ11449146 · 2022-08-29 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.14. The issue of entitlement to medical treatment is deferred.
The medical evidence from both applicant and defendant was found not to be substantial; the WCJ's order for treatment was vacated in part and remanded for further medical development.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13528847 · 2022-07-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5To the extent that the report is legible it is clear that based on its content and Applicant's testimony, Dr. Bady is not a workers compensation doctor. The records of Dr. Bady are only a small portion of the medical reports in evidence. The determination of AOE/COE was based on the entire record including the Panel QME report of Dr. Sang Lee who is a workers compensation doctor and who in fact reviewed the medical reports of Dr. Bady along with a numerous medical records. The entire record supports the finding that Applicant met her burden of proof of establishing injury AOE/COE regarding injuries she sustained to her bilateral upper extremities, cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, right leg and right knee on 2/16/2020.
The WCJ and WCAB found that Applicant met her burden of proof for injury AOE/COE based on credible testimony and the entire medical record including the Panel QME report of Dr. Sang Lee.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ9419245 · 2021-10-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9The employee has the burden of proof to prove injury arising out of and in the course of employment with substantial evidence (California Labor Code § 3202.5, Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 319). In this case, Pursuant to the reports by Charles Sadler, M.D. and the final report by agreed medical examiner Timothy C. Reynolds, M.D. the entirety of the industrial injuries fall on the specific injury and not on the continuous trauma. Applicant failed to meet his burden of showing a continuous trauma. APPLICANT, WHILE EMPLOYED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 DID NOT SUSTAIN A COMPENSABLE CONSEQUENCE TO HIS PSYCHE AND IN THE FORM OF ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION There is no medical evidence admitted that shows industrial causation for Applicant's psyche and erectile dysfunction injuries.
Applicant failed to meet burden of proof for continuous trauma; medical evidence attributed all injuries to specific injury.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ9218482 · 2023-08-07 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the contents of the Report and the Opinion on Decision of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report and Opinion on Decision, which are both adopted and incorporated herein, we will deny reconsideration.
The petition for reconsideration was denied because the WCJ's findings that treatment by Dr. Haronian was reasonably required and that certain charges denied by Utilization Review and not appealed through Independent Medical Review are disallowed were adopted and incorporated.
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.

Dorman & Suarez
DORMAN & SUAREZ
Dorman & Suarez, LLP
DORMAN & SUAREZ, LLP
DORMAN & SUAREZ LLP

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 →

Dorman & Suarez

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

3 for the defense

3 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.

ADJ11665067 · 2025-09-29 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The March 25, 2019 report of orthopedic QME Dr. Mikhael diagnosed applicant as having sustained injury to the lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, and right hand and wrist. (Ex. 25, Report of Mark Mikhael, M.D., dated March 25, 2019, at p. 9.) The QME concluded that "[i]t is within [a] reasonable degree of medical probability that the injury sustained by the examinee arose out of the course of employment due to cumulative trauma from the dates of October 24, 2013 to October 24, 2018." (Ibid.) Thus, the QME has identified injury AOE/COE.

The medical evidence from QME Dr. Mikhael and treating physician Dr. Bazel uniformly supports injury AOE/COE, and defendants offered no rebuttal evidence; the WCJ's requirement for applicant testimony was not supported by law as substantial evidence supports injury AOE/COE.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12032540 · 2024-11-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.5The WCJ rejected Dr. Perry's opinions because there was no evidence that the applicant was taking NSAIDs or steroids around the time of the stroke. Indeed, the record shows that decedent was taken off prednisone and naproxen in early 2015 and was allergic to ibuprofen. Nevertheless, the WCJ does not appear to evaluate Dr. Perry's opinion that even if decedent stopped taking medications increasing blood pressure in 2015, it could have still contributed to the 2018 stroke. We thus believe that the record should be developed on this issue, and the issue

The WCJ rejected the industrial causation of the stroke due to lack of evidence of medication use near the stroke date, but the WCAB found the record insufficient and ordered further development to clarify the causative link and medical probability of the medications contributing to the stroke.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ11418472 · 2024-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In case number ADJ11418472, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant, while employed by defendant on December 7, 2017, as a warehouse worker/loader, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right elbow; that she was permanent and stationary on August 20, 2018; that she was entitled to future medical treatment; and that the injury did not cause permanent disability. In case number ADJ11418473, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant while employed by defendant during the period July 26, 2017 to July 26, 2018, sustained injury AOE/COE to her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, hips and knees; that she was entitled to future medical treatment; and that she is "entitled to a permanent disability award (after apportionment) of sixty two percent (67%)."

The WCJ found the injury to the right elbow arose out of and in the course of employment based on the evidence presented.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11449146 · 2023-11-27 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5.... Applicant did not sustain his burden of proof in proving medical necessity of the disputed treatment

Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof by substantial medical evidence to show the medical necessity of the treatment requested in the October 28, 2021 RFA. The evidence was largely boilerplate, non-responsive, and did not incorporate relevant medical reports. Defendant's evidence was more thorough and cured prior defects, outweighing Applicant's evidence.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ11449146 · 2022-08-29 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

Determinative passage · p.14. The issue of entitlement to medical treatment is deferred.

The medical evidence from both applicant and defendant was found not to be substantial; the WCJ's order for treatment was vacated in part and remanded for further medical development.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13528847 · 2022-07-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5To the extent that the report is legible it is clear that based on its content and Applicant's testimony, Dr. Bady is not a workers compensation doctor. The records of Dr. Bady are only a small portion of the medical reports in evidence. The determination of AOE/COE was based on the entire record including the Panel QME report of Dr. Sang Lee who is a workers compensation doctor and who in fact reviewed the medical reports of Dr. Bady along with a numerous medical records. The entire record supports the finding that Applicant met her burden of proof of establishing injury AOE/COE regarding injuries she sustained to her bilateral upper extremities, cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, right leg and right knee on 2/16/2020.

The WCJ and WCAB found that Applicant met her burden of proof for injury AOE/COE based on credible testimony and the entire medical record including the Panel QME report of Dr. Sang Lee.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ9419245 · 2021-10-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9The employee has the burden of proof to prove injury arising out of and in the course of employment with substantial evidence (California Labor Code § 3202.5, Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 319). In this case, Pursuant to the reports by Charles Sadler, M.D. and the final report by agreed medical examiner Timothy C. Reynolds, M.D. the entirety of the industrial injuries fall on the specific injury and not on the continuous trauma. Applicant failed to meet his burden of showing a continuous trauma. APPLICANT, WHILE EMPLOYED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 DID NOT SUSTAIN A COMPENSABLE CONSEQUENCE TO HIS PSYCHE AND IN THE FORM OF ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION There is no medical evidence admitted that shows industrial causation for Applicant's psyche and erectile dysfunction injuries.

Applicant failed to meet burden of proof for continuous trauma; medical evidence attributed all injuries to specific injury.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ9218482 · 2023-08-07 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the contents of the Report and the Opinion on Decision of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report and Opinion on Decision, which are both adopted and incorporated herein, we will deny reconsideration.

The petition for reconsideration was denied because the WCJ's findings that treatment by Dr. Haronian was reasonably required and that certain charges denied by Utilization Review and not appealed through Independent Medical Review are disallowed were adopted and incorporated.

Official decision · page 1 →