California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Czuleger Davidson

Law Offices of Czuleger Davidson is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Permanent disability rating (1) and Statute of limitations (1). They were heard most often at Santa Ana, then Long Beach. The firm it meets most often is Law Offices of Lucy Bishop (1).

Decisions: 8
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 6

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 4 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.

Who they face

Law Offices of Lucy Bishop1

3 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 3
Long Beach 1
Pomona 1
Riverside 1
San Bernardino 1
Van Nuys 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.

4 for the applicant
4 for the defense

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ10849936 · 2022-05-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Cases 579], the Court of Appeal concluded that the date of injury under Labor Code section 5500.5 requires compensable temporary disability or permanent disability, that medical treatment alone is not disability but may be evidence of compensable permanent disability, and that these are factual determinations which require expert medical opinion. In this case, Hartford contends that the date of injury is May 19, 2017 because that is when applicant began treating with Dr. Rostami, and there was permanent disability from the outset because applicant's condition remained the same during the doctor's treatment for the year that followed. It was after that time, on May 15, 2018, that Dr. Rostami declared applicant permanent and stationary (P&S) and formally determined that he had sustained permanent disability. According to Hartford, May 15, 2018 is not the date of cumulative trauma because Dr.
The Appeals Board found that the date of injury is May 15, 2018, based on Dr. Rostami's May 15, 2018 report declaring the applicant permanent and stationary with 21% whole person impairment, and rejected Hartford's contention that the date should be earlier based on lack of substantial medical evidence before that date.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ13290788 · 2022-04-15 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.53. Applicant's testimony that he reported a January 1, 2007 injury to the employer is not credible. During the March 9, 2021 trial, applicant testified that he did not report the January 1, 2007 injury. During the November 9, 2021 trial, applicant initially testified that he reported the January 1, 2007 injury but subsequently admitted that he was confused about whether he reported any injury in 2007.
Applicant's testimony that he reported the injury was not credible. Employer had no notice and thus no obligation to provide a claim form or notice. The statute of limitations was not tolled and the claim is barred.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10809397 · 2021-09-17 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4First, Dr. Lineback clearly stated that "Unfortunately, no AMA criteria address chest wall pain" (Joint Exh. 1, p. 3), and "... no AMA Guidelines exist for chronic injuries to the chest wall." (Joint Exh. 5, p. 2.) Based on our review of the AMA Guides, we agree with Dr. Lineback that they do not contain any criteria for addressing applicant's chest injury. Thus, there is no means by which the doctor could provide a strict rating and in turn he could not explain why a strict rating would not be accurate. Under these circumstances, Dr. Lineback must exercise his professional skill and judgment to determine an accurate rating of applicant's disability. Also, Dr. Lineback did provide an alternative rating "within the four corners of AMA Guides" by analogizing applicant's chest injury with "the AMA Guidelines pertaining to the respiratory system" (Joint Exh. 5, p. 2.) He then explained why applicant's symptoms were consistent with "the criteria for Class 2 (15%) impairment of the whole person..." (Joint Exh. 5, p. 2.) For these reasons, we agree with the WCJ
Dr. Lineback's reports and opinions on applicant's disability rating constitute substantial evidence, properly applying Almaraz/Guzman and AMA Guides by analogy due to lack of specific AMA criteria for chest wall pain.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11276804 · 2021-02-23 · San Bernardino District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations in the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) and the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration, and we will affirm the F&A except that we will amend the F&A to find that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period beginning October 30, 2017, to and including November 8, 2019, and that applicant has received temporary disability indemnity during the period from October 30, 2017, through May 11, 2019, (Finding of
Applicant was temporarily totally disabled due to the September 28, 2017 injury until November 8, 2019, and is entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits beyond the previously awarded period, up to 104 weeks from October 30, 2017.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ2001929 · 2026-01-20 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal and reconsideration of the order of continuance issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) on October 9, 2025.
The WCJ's order is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration is dismissed; removal is denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19582218 · 2025-11-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
Petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate; removal is not warranted.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ14109208 · 2025-01-17 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on November 25, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the Board dismissed it as moot.
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.

DAVIDSON, CZULEGER, & BLALOCK, LLP
DAVIDSON, CZULEGER & BLALOCK
DAVIDSON CZULEGER & BLALOCK
Law Offices of Czuleger Davidson
DAVIDSON CZULEGER

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 →

Law Offices of Czuleger Davidson

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

4 for the defense

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ10849936 · 2022-05-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Cases 579], the Court of Appeal concluded that the date of injury under Labor Code section 5500.5 requires compensable temporary disability or permanent disability, that medical treatment alone is not disability but may be evidence of compensable permanent disability, and that these are factual determinations which require expert medical opinion. In this case, Hartford contends that the date of injury is May 19, 2017 because that is when applicant began treating with Dr. Rostami, and there was permanent disability from the outset because applicant's condition remained the same during the doctor's treatment for the year that followed. It was after that time, on May 15, 2018, that Dr. Rostami declared applicant permanent and stationary (P&S) and formally determined that he had sustained permanent disability. According to Hartford, May 15, 2018 is not the date of cumulative trauma because Dr.

The Appeals Board found that the date of injury is May 15, 2018, based on Dr. Rostami's May 15, 2018 report declaring the applicant permanent and stationary with 21% whole person impairment, and rejected Hartford's contention that the date should be earlier based on lack of substantial medical evidence before that date.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ13290788 · 2022-04-15 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.53. Applicant's testimony that he reported a January 1, 2007 injury to the employer is not credible. During the March 9, 2021 trial, applicant testified that he did not report the January 1, 2007 injury. During the November 9, 2021 trial, applicant initially testified that he reported the January 1, 2007 injury but subsequently admitted that he was confused about whether he reported any injury in 2007.

Applicant's testimony that he reported the injury was not credible. Employer had no notice and thus no obligation to provide a claim form or notice. The statute of limitations was not tolled and the claim is barred.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10809397 · 2021-09-17 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4First, Dr. Lineback clearly stated that "Unfortunately, no AMA criteria address chest wall pain" (Joint Exh. 1, p. 3), and "... no AMA Guidelines exist for chronic injuries to the chest wall." (Joint Exh. 5, p. 2.) Based on our review of the AMA Guides, we agree with Dr. Lineback that they do not contain any criteria for addressing applicant's chest injury. Thus, there is no means by which the doctor could provide a strict rating and in turn he could not explain why a strict rating would not be accurate. Under these circumstances, Dr. Lineback must exercise his professional skill and judgment to determine an accurate rating of applicant's disability. Also, Dr. Lineback did provide an alternative rating "within the four corners of AMA Guides" by analogizing applicant's chest injury with "the AMA Guidelines pertaining to the respiratory system" (Joint Exh. 5, p. 2.) He then explained why applicant's symptoms were consistent with "the criteria for Class 2 (15%) impairment of the whole person..." (Joint Exh. 5, p. 2.) For these reasons, we agree with the WCJ

Dr. Lineback's reports and opinions on applicant's disability rating constitute substantial evidence, properly applying Almaraz/Guzman and AMA Guides by analogy due to lack of specific AMA criteria for chest wall pain.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11276804 · 2021-02-23 · San Bernardino District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations in the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) and the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration, and we will affirm the F&A except that we will amend the F&A to find that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period beginning October 30, 2017, to and including November 8, 2019, and that applicant has received temporary disability indemnity during the period from October 30, 2017, through May 11, 2019, (Finding of

Applicant was temporarily totally disabled due to the September 28, 2017 injury until November 8, 2019, and is entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits beyond the previously awarded period, up to 104 weeks from October 30, 2017.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ2001929 · 2026-01-20 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal and reconsideration of the order of continuance issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) on October 9, 2025.

The WCJ's order is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration is dismissed; removal is denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19582218 · 2025-11-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

Petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate; removal is not warranted.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ14109208 · 2025-01-17 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on November 25, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the Board dismissed it as moot.

Official decision · page 1 →