California WCABLaw firm
Fabiano Castro & Clem
Fabiano Castro & Clem is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Liens (1), Permanent disability rating (1) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Los Angeles.
- Decisions
- 6
- Years
- 2021–2025
- Issues disputed
- 3
- District offices
- 3
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 6 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.
- ADJ19258673 · 2025-07-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ's award of temporary disability indemnity was based upon the January 30,
The WCJ's award was based on substantial evidence from PQME Dr. Ehya's report, which found applicant not permanent and stationary and entitled to continuing temporary disability indemnity. Defendant failed to show modified work was offered.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ number not stated · 2024-08-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence in the existing record to find that lien claimant did rebut the presumption "affecting the burden of proof" in section 139.21(g) that her lien claims "and all underlying bills for service and claims for compensation asserted therein, [arose] from the conduct subjecting the physician, practitioner, or provider to suspension..." (Lab. Code, § 139.21(g).)
The Appeals Board found that lien claimant rebutted the presumption under Labor Code section 139.21(g) because the fraudulent conduct for which she was convicted occurred in 2006, before she began treating workers' compensation patients in 2009, so the liens did not arise from the conduct subjecting her to suspension.
- ADJ9310145 · 2022-08-15 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, applicant was employed as a laborer on October 4, 2011, and defendant stipulated to that applicant was employed on that date and that his occupational variant was 360. Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10835; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The stipulation that applicant's occupational variant is 360 has not been disputed. As applicant's specific injury occurred on October 4, 2011, and his cumulative trauma injury began on October 4, 2011, applicant is entitled to the higher group number. We note that the assignment of the higher occupational group does not change the recommended permanent disability rating.
The parties stipulated that applicant's occupational variant for the specific injury on October 4, 2011 was 360, and the Board found applicant entitled to the higher group number for the cumulative trauma period as well.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ number not stated · 2024-11-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The insurance carriers in this consolidated matter seek reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) on August 30, 2024 (2024 Decision), which incorporated the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued by the Appeals Board on April 6, 2020 (2020 Decision). We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and although newly aggrieved by the 2024 Decision, the carriers raise no contentions not previously raised and addressed in the 2024 Decision or 2020 Decision. (See eg., 2020 Decision, pp. 22-26; 2024 Decision, pp. 6-7.)
The petition for reconsideration was denied because the carriers raised no new contentions beyond those already addressed in prior decisions, and the Appeals Board acted timely under Labor Code section 5909.
- ADJ14111819 · 2021-12-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ's decision was served on September 21, 2021. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Monday, October 18, 2021 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on October 19, 2021 is untimely and will be dismissed.
The petition for reconsideration was filed one day after the 25-day deadline from the WCJ's decision service date, making it untimely and subject to dismissal.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ13380667 · 2021-09-27 · Los Angeles 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, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The petition was denied because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
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.
- FABIANO CASTRO & CLEM, LLP
- Fabiano Castro & Clem
- FABIANO, CASTRO & CLEM, 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.