Kegel, Tobin & Truce

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 14
• Los Angeles 5
• Marina del Rey 2
• Pomona 1
• San Diego 1
• Santa Ana 1
• Santa Barbara 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.

• 16 for the defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 24 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.

• 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.

• ADJ11292320 · 2024-03-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on March 30, 2021, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part that defendant's denial of applicant's claim of cumulative injury to her psyche and in the form of headaches, insomnia, and internal complaints was untimely and that applicant was entitled to the presumption of compensability pursuant to Labor Code2, section 5402(b)3; however, the WCJ further found that that applicant's injury to psyche was predominantly caused by lawful, non- discriminatory, good-faith personnel actions per section 3208.3(h) and ordered that applicant take nothing on her claim.

  The WCJ found defendant's denial untimely, entitling applicant to presumption of compensability under section 5402(b), but also allowed defendant to raise the good faith personnel action defense under section 3208.3(h). The WCJ failed to perform the required Rolda analysis to determine if defendant met its burden of proof, so the findings were vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2895646 · 2023-05-31 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.910. The City of Los Angeles is liable for reasonable and necessary self-procured medical treatment and medical-legal costs. This includes reasonable mileage reimbursement for medical treatment and medical-legal evaluations, subject to proof, to be adjusted between the parties, and jurisdiction is reserved to the trial level in the event of a dispute.

  City of Los Angeles is liable for reasonable and necessary self-procured medical treatment and medical-legal costs, with jurisdiction reserved for disputes.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10149894 · 2023-03-06 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7As stated above in the Discussion, Applicant sustained an industrial injury to her brain (stroke), left eye, hypertension and low back. The evidence considered, the testimony presented of the applicant, and the entire medical record substantiates an industrial injury.

  The WCJ found credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from Dr. Grodan and others supporting injury to brain (stroke), left eye, hypertension, and low back arising out of employment, which the WCAB panel affirmed.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ9756837 · 2022-12-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Finding of Fact of February 4, 2019, the Workers' Compensation Judge ("WCJ") found that on October 11, 2012, applicant, while employed as a housekeeper by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment.

  The Appeals Board found that the attack by Roberto on applicant had some connection to her work at the church, rejecting the defendant's contention that the attack was purely personal and unrelated to employment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7370880 · 2022-09-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant, Elena Konstat, Ph.D, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 10, 2019. In that decision, the WCJ ordered that Dr. Konstat "...shall be reimbursed for her initial psychological evaluation, and only the initial evaluation by Defendant, amounts to be adjusted by the parties."

  The WCJ initially allowed reimbursement only for the initial psychological evaluation but disallowed the remainder of the lien claim. The WCAB rescinded that order and approved a stipulation for partial payment resolving the lien claim.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ887731 · 2022-04-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Based upon this record, it is clear that applicant's termination resulted from proceedings initiated before defendant could have known of her workers' compensation claim and thus unrelated to her claim. It follows that the evidence fails to demonstrate applicant's prima facie section 132a claim.

  Applicant failed to prove that defendant's termination was related to her workers' compensation claim because the termination process began before defendant had notice of the claim.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ9114534 · 2022-01-05 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814remanded

  Determinative passage · p.1In order to further study the factual and legal issues in this case, we granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Amended Joint Findings of Fact and Order of September 30, 2019, wherein it was found that defendant was liable for multiple Labor Code section 5814 penalties for unreasonably delaying the payment of compensation to the applicant, and liable for 5814.5 attorney's fees for enforcing payment of the award. In this matter, in an Amended Joint Findings and Award of November 5, 2018, it was found that while employed on February 22, 2013 (ADJ9104277), and during a cumulative period from November 1989 to February 22, 2013 (ADJ9114534), applicant sustained industrial injury to her tooth, mouth, face, neck, knees, cervical, lumbar and thoracic spine, wrists, shoulders, hips, right ankle, gastrointestinal system, and in the forms of headaches, hypertension, and constipation. It was found that the injuries combined to cause permanent total (100%) disability.

  The WCJ's imposition of penalties and attorneys' fees was found unclear and required a full reanalysis and explanation of the basis for any penalties or fees imposed, including exact amounts and reasons, consistent with legal standards and principles outlined in Ramirez and Labor Code sections 5814 and 5814.5.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7303582 · 2021-12-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, we agree with the opinion of the WCJ, as expressed in the Report, that applicant did not meet his burden of demonstrating a prima facie violation of section 132a. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)

  Applicant failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination under LC 132a because he did not show he had a legal right to retain employment or that termination was due to his industrial injury; credible evidence showed termination was due to unexcused absences predating injury and proper warnings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10793298 · 2021-07-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 10, 2021. By the F&O, the WCJ denied defendant's request to have the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) replaced on the grounds that he violated the anti-ghostwriting statutes and for lack of a dated signature.

  Dr. Miller violated Labor Code section 4628 by not personally preparing the summaries of medical records in his reports, making his reports inadmissible and requiring replacement of the QME panel.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9945889 · 2021-07-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6We turn first to defendants' contention that the WCJ violated their rights of due process by setting the issue for trial solely as to employment without their agreement as signatories to a pre- trial conference statement. More specifically, defendants argue that because they objected to trial of any issue other than CIGA's petition for dismissal, because they did not initially agree to complete a pre-trial conference statement, and because "If there is no Pre-Trial Conference Statement filled out the day of the Mandatory Settlement Conference, then no trial can be held," trial of the employment issue constituted a violation of their rights of due process. (Petition, pp. 4:28-5:18.)

  The WCJ properly held trial solely on the issue of employment to determine liability and potential dismissal of CIGA; defendants had notice and opportunity to be heard, so no due process violation; WCJ's credibility findings favored applicant's employment by defendants; statute of limitations issue deferred.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11297621 · 2021-03-11 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3FINDINGS OF FACT 3. Applicant's attorney is entitled to an award of attorney's fees under Labor

  The Board found that defendant unreasonably delayed payment, triggering attorney's fees under section 5814.5 after penalties were awarded under section 5814.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• KEGEL, TOBIN & TRUCE
• KEGEL TOBIN & TRUCE
• KEGEL, TOBIN & TRUCE, APC
• Kegel, Tobin & Truce
• Kegel Tobin & Truce
• KEGEL TOBIN

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.