California WCABLaw firm

Gurvitz & Marlowe

Gurvitz & Marlowe is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (3) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at Santa Ana, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Solov & Teitell (3).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 4

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 of 7 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

5 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

Santa Ana 4
Van Nuys 3
Los Angeles 2
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.

5 for the defense
2 for the applicant
2 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ9477566 · 2026-05-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the supplemental briefing, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, because we conclude that (1) section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply to the claim, but that (2) the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, a necessary factual predicate to application of those subdivisions.
The Board concluded that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply, but the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, which is necessary to apply those subdivisions.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ10622392 · 2022-12-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order dated August 10, 2018, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's claim was exempt from the California workers' compensation system pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivision (d)(1)(B).2 Applicant contends the WCJ erred in determining that he had spent at least seven seasons playing for teams based outside California.
The WCJ and WCAB found that applicant's claim is barred because he worked more than seven seasons for out-of-state teams, thus meeting the exemption criteria under section 3600.5(d)(1)(B).
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8364344 · 2022-10-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8In summary, we agree with the WCJ that the February 20, 2014 Stipulation and Order supports the award of temporary disability and that defendant is not entitled to credit for temporary disability sums paid. However, because our February 16, 2021 Opinion and Order rescinded the November 3, 2020 Joint Findings of Fact, Award and Order, the prior findings of fact and award is no longer of any force or effect. Accordingly, we will rescind the October 5, 2021 F&A and substitute new findings of fact and award.
The Appeals Board found that the February 20, 2014 Stipulation and Order was substantial evidence supporting the award of temporary disability and that defendant was not entitled to credit for temporary disability sums paid because defendant did not timely object under Labor Code section 4062 and did not reserve credit rights in the stipulation.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ15911190 · 2024-11-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Since the WCJ did not hold a hearing or admit any evidence into the record on the issue of dismissal of applicant's cases, we do not have a sufficient record to consider the issue in the first instance. Moreover, as a matter of due process, applicant is entitled to a hearing.
The WCAB found the dismissal order lacked a sufficient record and due process, granting reconsideration and returning the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ15911190 · 2024-07-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Here, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, we will deny the petition to the extent it seeks to disqualify the WCJs.
The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under the applicable law and rules to establish grounds for removal or disqualification. The applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and the petition was untimely and unverified.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ1998642 · 2024-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's Order resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration.
The WCJ's order was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary order, not a final order determining substantive rights or threshold issues, so reconsideration does not lie. Removal was denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate after a final decision.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ7765344 · 2023-11-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7470175 · 2022-04-15 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, Petition for Removal 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 did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, 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.

GURVITZ & MARLOWE
GURVITZ MARLOWE WOODLAND HILLS
GURVITZ & MARLOWE LLP
GURVITZ MARLOWE LAW FIRM
Gurvitz & Marlowe

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 →

Gurvitz & Marlowe

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

2 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ9477566 · 2026-05-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the supplemental briefing, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, because we conclude that (1) section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply to the claim, but that (2) the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, a necessary factual predicate to application of those subdivisions.

The Board concluded that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply, but the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, which is necessary to apply those subdivisions.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ10622392 · 2022-12-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order dated August 10, 2018, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's claim was exempt from the California workers' compensation system pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivision (d)(1)(B).2 Applicant contends the WCJ erred in determining that he had spent at least seven seasons playing for teams based outside California.

The WCJ and WCAB found that applicant's claim is barred because he worked more than seven seasons for out-of-state teams, thus meeting the exemption criteria under section 3600.5(d)(1)(B).

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8364344 · 2022-10-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8In summary, we agree with the WCJ that the February 20, 2014 Stipulation and Order supports the award of temporary disability and that defendant is not entitled to credit for temporary disability sums paid. However, because our February 16, 2021 Opinion and Order rescinded the November 3, 2020 Joint Findings of Fact, Award and Order, the prior findings of fact and award is no longer of any force or effect. Accordingly, we will rescind the October 5, 2021 F&A and substitute new findings of fact and award.

The Appeals Board found that the February 20, 2014 Stipulation and Order was substantial evidence supporting the award of temporary disability and that defendant was not entitled to credit for temporary disability sums paid because defendant did not timely object under Labor Code section 4062 and did not reserve credit rights in the stipulation.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ15911190 · 2024-11-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Since the WCJ did not hold a hearing or admit any evidence into the record on the issue of dismissal of applicant's cases, we do not have a sufficient record to consider the issue in the first instance. Moreover, as a matter of due process, applicant is entitled to a hearing.

The WCAB found the dismissal order lacked a sufficient record and due process, granting reconsideration and returning the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ15911190 · 2024-07-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Here, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, we will deny the petition to the extent it seeks to disqualify the WCJs.

The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under the applicable law and rules to establish grounds for removal or disqualification. The applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and the petition was untimely and unverified.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ1998642 · 2024-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's Order resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration.

The WCJ's order was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary order, not a final order determining substantive rights or threshold issues, so reconsideration does not lie. Removal was denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate after a final decision.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ7765344 · 2023-11-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7470175 · 2022-04-15 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, Petition for Removal 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 did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →