California WCABLaw firm
Larson, Larson & Dauer
Larson, Larson & Dauer is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Discrimination under Labor Code §132a (1), QME/AME process (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Santa Ana. The firm it meets most often is Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin (1).
- Decisions
- 7
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 3
- District offices
- 2
Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 5 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.
4 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
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 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.
- ADJ7358979 · 2023-09-28 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The WCJ's Report recommends we amend the F&A to reflect April 22, 2009 as the date of injury for the permanent disability rating. (Report, at pp. 5-6.) With respect to the addition rather than combination of the psychiatric disability, the WCJ observes that the rationale provided by the AME is well supported in the record and constitutes substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 7.) With respect to apportionment as between the various claimed injuries, the WCJ noted that the psychiatric AME was unable to parcel out the respective percentages of disability attributable to the injuries, and that applicant is entitled to an unapportioned award as a result. (Id. at pp. 8-9.) The WCJ further notes that the neurology QME identified ratable gait impairment "because of moderate to high- grade cervical stenosis, compression of the spinal cord, and progression of myelopathy in the cervical spine," and that the resulting disability is supported in the medical record. (Id. at pp. 9- 10.) The WCJ also explains that the reporting of applicant's vocational expert was more persuasive than the reporting offered by the defense, in part because defendant's expert opined to impermissible "vocational apportionment," in her analysis. (Id. at p. 11.)
The psychiatric AME was unable to parcel out the respective percentages of disability attributable to the injuries, justifying a combined award; the date of injury for the award is April 22, 2009.
Official decision · page 4 → - 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 → - ADJ12435218 · 2021-12-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative removal, regarding of the October 12, 2020 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that the selection of Steven Meier, M.D., as panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) from panel number 7354140 is valid.
The Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and that reconsideration was an adequate remedy, thus affirming the WCJ's decision that the PQME selection was valid despite the strike dispute and replacement request.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ15298613 · 2026-04-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the "Finding(s), Order(s), and Opinion on Decision" issued on February 9, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant established good cause for a replacement panel due to the unavailability of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) to set an initial evaluation appointment.
The WCJ properly applied the Vazquez factors and found good cause for replacement due to QME unavailability, and the Appeals Board found no abuse of discretion in denying removal.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12382729 · 2022-08-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Applicant's uncontroverted testimony that he was required to assist in the physical restraint of combative patients provides evidentiary support for the WCJ's finding that applicant performed duties consistent with occupational group number 460. (Holt, supra.)
The WCJ's finding that the applicant's occupational group number was 460 was supported by credible testimony that the applicant performed duties consistent with that occupational group, including restraining aggressive patients, which was not contradicted by the defendant.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ8855250 · 2022-06-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration. The Appeals Board dismissed applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of a December 20, 2021 decision by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) because the decision was untimely.
The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely, as timeliness depends on receipt by the district office, not mailing date, and the Board lacks authority to consider untimely petitions.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ8855250 · 2022-04-05 · Van Nuys 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, the petition is untimely and must be dismissed.
The petition was dismissed because it was filed after the allowed time period for reconsideration, making it untimely.
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.
- LARSON, LARSON & DAUER, ALC
- LARSON, LARSON & DAUER
- LARSON, LARSON & DAUER, ALC.
- LARSON, LARSON AND DAUER
- Larson, Larson & Dauer
- LARSON LARSON & DAUER
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.