California WCABLaw firm

Grossman Law Offices

Grossman Law Offices is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Temporary disability (3) and Permanent disability rating (2). They were heard most often at Fresno.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 1

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Fresno 7

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.

6 for the applicant
1 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ21030204 · 2026-05-22 · Fresno District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Turning now to the merits of the Petition, defendant contends that based upon the current record, including applicant's October 8, 2025 testimony regarding seasonal employment with defendant and lack of evidence of off season earnings, applicant is not entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits for the off season. (Petition, pp. 3-5.)
The record lacked sufficient evidence regarding the seasonal employment status and off season earnings, requiring further development of the record to determine entitlement to temporary disability benefits off season.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11533485 · 2026-01-20 · Fresno District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed
Determinative passage · p.13Applicant's current permanent disability rates as follows: 15.03.01.00 - 8 - [1.4]11 - 491H - 14 = 14% Applicant's disability rating does not require the assistance of a DEU rater in this case. (See Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010), 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 613, 624-625 (Appeals Board en banc).) After apportionment under section 4664, applicant's permanent disability award in this case is 2% (14% - 12%). Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration we will rescind the WCJ's May 14, 2021 F&A and issue a new F&A, which affirms the WCJ's findings as to temporary disability, and finds that applicant's injury caused 2% permanent disability after apportionment. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings of Fact, Award, Order, and Opinion on Decision issued on May 14, 2021is RESCINDED, with the following SUBSTITUTED in its place:
The Appeals Board found that the applicant's current permanent disability rating was a progression of a prior rated impairment using the same AMA Guides chart, entitling defendant to apportionment under section 4664(b). The permanent disability was reduced to 2% after apportionment.
Official decision · page 13 →
ADJ12410207 · 2024-05-03 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of February 5, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, while working as a utility worker for FCEC/SMG, sustained injury (arising out of and occurring in the course of employment) to his left ankle and left arm, as a result of falling from a forklift on May 23, 2019. In addition, the WCJ found that "applicant asked a forklift operator co-employee to give him a ride to his car in the parking lot so he could retrieve his lunch," that "as a result of actions of a co-employee, applicant was thrown off the forklift, sustaining injury to his left ankle and left arm," that the "employer has denied the claim in its entirety," that "applicant sustained his injuries on employer's premises (i.e., the parking lot adjacent to the Convention Center), therefore he was within the curtilage of the building in which he worked, which was thus under employer's exclusive control," that "the co-employee, who was a trained and certificated forklift driver, gave the co-employee superior knowledge as to the safe operation of the forklift," that "aside from the self-serving testimony of employer's operations manager, no corroborating evidence was presented as to safety meeting discussions regarding the safe use of forklifts," that "applicant's testimony, therefore, that he received no such
The injury occurred while the applicant was on an employer-designated parking lot during an employer-approved lunch break, and the injury arose from a risk connected with employment, not horseplay or negligence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10499216 · 2022-03-16 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 17, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical, thoracic, and lumbosacral spine, to his bilateral shoulders, and his psyche; that applicant was temporarily disabled for the period from October 16, 2015, through June 30, 2017; that the injury caused 70% permanent disability; that the opinions of qualified medical examiner (QME) John W. Hill, D.C., are substantial evidence; and that the report from orthopedist Don Williams, M.D. was not admissible.
The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the injury to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbosacral spine and psyche as accepted parts of body injured.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10625118 · 2021-09-03 · Fresno District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In this case, the WCJ believed the applicant's testimony that he reported his injury to his supervisors, and disbelieved the defendant's witnesses' testimony to the contrary. (Report at p. 4.) A WCJ's credibility determinations are "entitled to great weight." (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) The defendant thus had the duty pursuant to Labor Code section 5401 to give applicant the DWC-1 form containing notice of his workers' compensation rights, and the statute of limitations was tolled until he was given the form or otherwise obtained actual knowledge of his rights. Applicant did not receive notice of his workers' compensation rights until October 11, 2016. Thus, the filing of his Application for Adjudication in the specific injury case on October 27, 2016, less than three weeks after obtaining the required notices, was timely.
The statute of limitations was tolled due to defendant's failure to provide a DWC-1 claim form, and the claim was timely filed after applicant received notice of rights.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12570636 · 2021-12-23 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 21, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ struck the reports and deposition of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) pursuant to defendant's Petition to Strike Reporting of Panel Qualified Medical Examiner.
The WCJ's Order striking the QME reports was issued without an evidentiary record and without showing a basis under AD Rule 31.5(a) for replacement of the QME. Defendant's reasons did not meet the enumerated grounds for replacement, so the WCAB granted removal of the Order.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7785974 · 2021-02-12 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Removal, applicant's answer and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Defendant requested approval to file a supplemental pleading and applicant filed an objection to defendant's supplemental pleading. We accept both supplemental pleadings per WCAB Rule 10964. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10848, now § 10964 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant the Petition as one seeking reconsideration solely to amend the Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on Decision (F&O) to provide the parties with an opportunity to agree to an agreed medical evaluator (AME) in lieu of proceeding with an evaluation with the appointed physician. We will otherwise affirm the F&O.
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the F&O to allow the parties to agree to an AME instead of proceeding with the appointed physician's evaluation, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be 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.

GROSSMAN LAW OFFICES
GROSSMAN 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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ21030204 · 2026-05-22 · Fresno District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.6Turning now to the merits of the Petition, defendant contends that based upon the current record, including applicant's October 8, 2025 testimony regarding seasonal employment with defendant and lack of evidence of off season earnings, applicant is not entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits for the off season. (Petition, pp. 3-5.)

The record lacked sufficient evidence regarding the seasonal employment status and off season earnings, requiring further development of the record to determine entitlement to temporary disability benefits off season.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11533485 · 2026-01-20 · Fresno District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed

Determinative passage · p.13Applicant's current permanent disability rates as follows: 15.03.01.00 - 8 - [1.4]11 - 491H - 14 = 14% Applicant's disability rating does not require the assistance of a DEU rater in this case. (See Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010), 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 613, 624-625 (Appeals Board en banc).) After apportionment under section 4664, applicant's permanent disability award in this case is 2% (14% - 12%). Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration we will rescind the WCJ's May 14, 2021 F&A and issue a new F&A, which affirms the WCJ's findings as to temporary disability, and finds that applicant's injury caused 2% permanent disability after apportionment. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings of Fact, Award, Order, and Opinion on Decision issued on May 14, 2021is RESCINDED, with the following SUBSTITUTED in its place:

The Appeals Board found that the applicant's current permanent disability rating was a progression of a prior rated impairment using the same AMA Guides chart, entitling defendant to apportionment under section 4664(b). The permanent disability was reduced to 2% after apportionment.

Official decision · page 13 →

ADJ12410207 · 2024-05-03 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of February 5, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, while working as a utility worker for FCEC/SMG, sustained injury (arising out of and occurring in the course of employment) to his left ankle and left arm, as a result of falling from a forklift on May 23, 2019. In addition, the WCJ found that "applicant asked a forklift operator co-employee to give him a ride to his car in the parking lot so he could retrieve his lunch," that "as a result of actions of a co-employee, applicant was thrown off the forklift, sustaining injury to his left ankle and left arm," that the "employer has denied the claim in its entirety," that "applicant sustained his injuries on employer's premises (i.e., the parking lot adjacent to the Convention Center), therefore he was within the curtilage of the building in which he worked, which was thus under employer's exclusive control," that "the co-employee, who was a trained and certificated forklift driver, gave the co-employee superior knowledge as to the safe operation of the forklift," that "aside from the self-serving testimony of employer's operations manager, no corroborating evidence was presented as to safety meeting discussions regarding the safe use of forklifts," that "applicant's testimony, therefore, that he received no such

The injury occurred while the applicant was on an employer-designated parking lot during an employer-approved lunch break, and the injury arose from a risk connected with employment, not horseplay or negligence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10499216 · 2022-03-16 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 17, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical, thoracic, and lumbosacral spine, to his bilateral shoulders, and his psyche; that applicant was temporarily disabled for the period from October 16, 2015, through June 30, 2017; that the injury caused 70% permanent disability; that the opinions of qualified medical examiner (QME) John W. Hill, D.C., are substantial evidence; and that the report from orthopedist Don Williams, M.D. was not admissible.

The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the injury to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbosacral spine and psyche as accepted parts of body injured.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10625118 · 2021-09-03 · Fresno District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In this case, the WCJ believed the applicant's testimony that he reported his injury to his supervisors, and disbelieved the defendant's witnesses' testimony to the contrary. (Report at p. 4.) A WCJ's credibility determinations are "entitled to great weight." (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) The defendant thus had the duty pursuant to Labor Code section 5401 to give applicant the DWC-1 form containing notice of his workers' compensation rights, and the statute of limitations was tolled until he was given the form or otherwise obtained actual knowledge of his rights. Applicant did not receive notice of his workers' compensation rights until October 11, 2016. Thus, the filing of his Application for Adjudication in the specific injury case on October 27, 2016, less than three weeks after obtaining the required notices, was timely.

The statute of limitations was tolled due to defendant's failure to provide a DWC-1 claim form, and the claim was timely filed after applicant received notice of rights.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12570636 · 2021-12-23 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 21, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ struck the reports and deposition of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) pursuant to defendant's Petition to Strike Reporting of Panel Qualified Medical Examiner.

The WCJ's Order striking the QME reports was issued without an evidentiary record and without showing a basis under AD Rule 31.5(a) for replacement of the QME. Defendant's reasons did not meet the enumerated grounds for replacement, so the WCAB granted removal of the Order.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7785974 · 2021-02-12 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Removal, applicant's answer and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Defendant requested approval to file a supplemental pleading and applicant filed an objection to defendant's supplemental pleading. We accept both supplemental pleadings per WCAB Rule 10964. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10848, now § 10964 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant the Petition as one seeking reconsideration solely to amend the Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on Decision (F&O) to provide the parties with an opportunity to agree to an agreed medical evaluator (AME) in lieu of proceeding with an evaluation with the appointed physician. We will otherwise affirm the F&O.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the F&O to allow the parties to agree to an AME instead of proceeding with the appointed physician's evaluation, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →