Ghitterman, Ghitterman & Feld

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Santa Barbara 20
• Oxnard 11
• Bakersfield 10
• Van Nuys 5
• San Bernardino 2
• Fresno 1
• Goleta 1
• San Luis Obispo 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 24 for the defense
• 19 for the applicant
• 11 returned for more record

Counted over 49 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.

• ADJ9417278 · 2026-06-16 · Goleta District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 29, 2022 Findings of Fact and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant failed to present evidence substantiating any preexisting labor disabling permanent disability and that applicant is not entitled to benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBF).

  Applicant failed to prove preexisting labor disabling permanent disability, but the record shows prior medical records noting orthopedic conditions and fibromyalgia, warranting further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10798775 · 2025-07-21 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.17In this case, we reject as unsupported by the evidence the stipulation of the parties that applicant sustained a specific injury of August 27, 2015 to the upper extremities, and a specific injury of March 5, 2017 to the lower extremities. Based on the lack of substantial medical evidence establishing that applicant sustained any specific injury and based on indications by both physicians that he sustained a cumulative injury to the upper extremities and may have sustained a cumulative injury to the lower extremities as well, we rescind the April 7, 2025 Joint Findings and Awards in their entirety for further hearing and development of the record consistent with this decision.

  The Appeals Board found the medical evidence insufficient to support the specific injury findings and apportionment opinions, leading to rescission of the F&A and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 17 →
• ADJ11207109 · 2025-05-29 · Bakersfield District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3QME Dr. Kenly has evaluated the applicant and issued four reports. In his initial report of February 5, 2019, Dr. Kenly reviewed the submitted medical records and documented his clinical evaluation of applicant. The QME's report identifies both industrial causation and resulting permanent disability. (Ex. 1, Report of Michael Kenly, M.D., dated February 5, 2019, at p. 10.) With respect to apportionment, the QME states:

  The WCAB found the QME's apportionment opinion to be substantial evidence based on the QME's clinical evaluation, medical expertise, and explanation of obesity as a nonindustrial factor causing permanent disability, thus affirming the 50% apportionment to nonindustrial factors.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12805812 · 2024-10-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813remanded

  Determinative passage · p.5In keeping with due process, we will rescind the Order and return the case in order to afford petitioner the opportunity to develop the evidentiary record on the issue of attorneys' fees. In the further proceedings, petitioner should present documentary evidence and testimony in an evidentiary hearing so that the WCJ may decide the issue on a more complete record based on the factors set forth in Labor Code section 4906(d) and WCAB Rule 10844. Applicant should be granted notice of the hearing and the notice required by WCAB Rule 10842.

  The WCJ reduced the attorney's fee without affording petitioner a hearing or opportunity to present evidence, violating due process. The Appeals Board rescinded the Order and remanded for further proceedings to allow development of the evidentiary record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ111292949 · 2024-09-16 · Oxnard District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813deferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Finally, we note that the WCJ awarded 25% in attorney's fees. The WCJ explained that "this case was substantially complex enough to warrant a fee of equal to 25% of each future payout from SIBTF awarded." (Opinion on Decision dated July 3, 2024.) We recognize the care that applicant's attorneys exercised in representing applicant and the positive result achieved for applicant. However, there has not been any evidence taken to substantiate an award of 25%. Furthermore, attorney's fees are governed by Labor Code, section 4903 and WCAB Rule 10844, not necessarily the "complexity" of a case. For that reason, we amend the Findings and Award to defer the issue of attorney's fees.

  The WCAB deferred the issue of attorney's fees due to lack of evidence substantiating the 25% fee awarded by the WCJ, noting fees are governed by statute and rule, not case complexity.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ9489540 · 2024-06-28 · Santa Barbara District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award (F&A) issued on April 5, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a deputy director of social services during the period January 1, 2007 through February 16, 2013, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment in the form of hypertension, cognitive impairment, and neurologic deficit; (2) no attorney fees have been paid in connection with the application for SIBTF benefits; (3) applicant's permanent disability start date is October 25, 2013; (4) applicant sustained an injury in the form of hypertension in the amount of 42 percent without adjustment for age, occupation, or apportionment; (5) applicant sustained an injury in the form of visual loss in the amount of 28 percent without adjustm

  The Board followed Bookout's interpretation that the 35 percent threshold for SIBTF benefits is met by the permanent disability rating from the subsequent injury alone without apportionment, affirming the applicant's eligibility.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7640424 · 2024-03-25 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.51. Applicant's permanent disability rate. Labor Code section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the "reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, at p. 478), and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.

  No findings of fact were made on the permanent disability rate; the WCJ did not address applicant's claim for increased rate due to state minimum wage; the matter is returned for further record development to issue appropriate findings per Hamilton.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ4145263 · 2024-03-18 · Oxnard District OfficeApportionmentdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.13Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&O and substitute findings that defer the issues of the amount of applicant's preexisting disability, whether applicant's preexisting disability served as a basis for her SSD benefits, the amount of the attorney's fee, and whether applicant is entitled to SIBTF benefits pursuant to Todd.

  The issue of whether the preexisting disability served as a basis for SSD benefits is deferred due to insufficient evidence.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ10074517 · 2023-10-30 · San Luis Obispo District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2With regard to the cervical spine injury, while we reject the notion that the cervical spine was not subject to reopening because any cervical spine claim was dismissed without prejudice, applicant has not produced sufficient evidence of either good cause to reopen (Lab. Code, § 5803) or new and further disability (Lab. Code section 5410) with regard to the cervical spine. With regard to the issue of new and further disability, orthopedist Elana Harway, M.D., who was the panel qualified medical evaluator in the reopening proceedings, did not find any cervical spine new and further disability. With regard to good cause to reopen, both Dr. Proctor's and Dr. Baldwin's reporting prior to the stipulated Award noted neck complaints (although Dr. Baldwin appears to say that these were related to the accepted shoulder injury), but neither found compensable cervical spine injury.

  Applicant did not produce sufficient evidence of good cause to reopen or new and further disability regarding the cervical spine; no substantial medical evidence supported industrial injury to the cervical spine.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12253162 · 2023-10-09 · Santa Barbara District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration we issued on July 14, 2023, wherein we rescinded the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings that (1) while employed as a custodian on July 26, 2015, applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his lumbar spine and right elbow; (2) applicant does not meet the 35 percent permanent disability threshold from the subsequent industrial injury alone as required by Labor Code section 4751(b);1 (3) applicant does not meet the requirements for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits; and (4) applicant shall take nothing by his claim; and substituted findings that applicant meets the 35 percent permanent disability threshold from the subsequent industrial injury alone as required by section 4751(b); and the issues of whether applicant meets the remaining eligibility requirements for SIBTF benefits and, as appropriate, the issues of permanent disability; liens; attorneys' fees; the 25 percent retainer fee agreement; the offset pursuant to section 4753; and the statute of limitations are deferred; and we returned the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our decision.

  The Board followed the Court of Appeal's holding in Bookout that the 35 percent threshold must be met by the subsequent injury alone without apportionment, and rejected defendant's contrary arguments based on other cases.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11930165 · 2023-08-07 · Bakersfield District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3medical evidence. The reports do not describe in detail how non-industrial factors are contributing to applicant's permanent impairment. While we understand that non-industrial obesity may be contributing to applicant's condition, Dr. Assil does not sufficiently explain how obesity is contributing to the permanent impairment. Additionally, even assuming age in and of itself could be a basis for apportionment, there is insufficient explanation regarding how applicant's age (rather than activities or conditions during applicant's lifetime) have contributed to degeneration and how this degeneration has contributed to applicant's permanent impairment.

  Dr. Assil's apportionment opinion was conclusory and lacked sufficient explanation, thus not substantial medical evidence; defendant did not meet burden of proof for apportionment, entitling applicant to a non-apportioned permanent disability award of 44%.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12253162 · 2023-07-14 · Santa Barbara District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Hence we conclude that the WCJ erroneously considered apportionment in his calculation of applicant's subsequent permanent disability. Accordingly, we will rescind the F&A and substitute a finding that applicant meets the 35 percent permanent disability threshold from the subsequent industrial injury alone as required by section 4751(b).

  The WCJ erroneously considered apportionment in calculating subsequent permanent disability, but the Appeals Board found that apportionment must be excluded under section 4751(b) and controlling case law, thus applicant meets the 35% threshold.

  Official decision · page 6 →

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.

• GHITTERMAN, GHITTERMAN & FELD
• GHITTERMAN GHITTERMAN & FELD
• Ghitterman, Ghitterman & Feld
• LAW OFFICES OF GHITTERMAN, GHITTERMAN & FELD
• Law Office of Ghitterman Ghitterman & Feld
• GUITTERMAN, GHITTERMAN & FELD
• GHITTERMAN GHITTTERMAN & FELD
• GHITTERMAN GUITTERMAN & FELD
• GHITTERMAN GHITTERMAN FELD

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.