Law Offices of Edward J. Singer

What they litigate

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

• Psyche AOE/COE4
• AOE/COE3
• Permanent disability rating2
• Temporary disability2
• Statute of limitations1

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 4
• Fresno 2
• Riverside 2
• Anaheim 1
• Bakersfield 1
• Oxnard 1
• Redding 1
• San Diego 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.

• 6 for the defense
• 5 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

• ADJ8984436 · 2026-06-30 · Riverside District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.151. the applicant, age 31 at the time of injury, while employed during the period from November 5, 2005 through April 9, 2013, as a senior investigative technician, occupation group number in dispute, at Riverside, California, by the County of Riverside, permissibly self-insured and self-administered, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her psyche and internal system.

  The Appeals Board found that applicant sustained injury to psyche and internal system arising out of employment, and that defendant did not meet its burden to prove the injury was barred by lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel actions under Labor Code section 3208.5(h).

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ13479589 · 2025-12-16 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Defendant argues in the Petition that Dr. Kyle did not waive the January 17, 2018 procedure due to an "Employee Courtesy," but only after applicant informed him about a suspected injury. (Defendant's Petition, at p. 5.) However, defendant put forth no evidence, including any witness testimony by Dr. Kyle, to support this argument. In contrast, a review of applicant's account history actually shows applicant's copays were waived throughout her employment. (Joint Exhibit UU, at pp. 6-7.) Therefore, we conclude that applicant demonstrated that her injury was AOE/COE.

  Applicant demonstrated injury AOE/COE to teeth based on the personal comfort doctrine and substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Scorza; injury to other body parts deferred for further development.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9068361 · 2025-08-29 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim for date of injury of 5/25/12 through 5/28/13 to the back, bilateral lower extremities, neck, headaches, bilateral upper extremities, and nervous system. Application for Adjudication of Clam, EAMS Doc. ID 49568478. Applicant settled his case by way of Stipulation with Request for Award on 1/23/18 awarding permanent disability of 48% after apportionment. Joint Exhibit V. The settlement was based upon AME, Dr. Richard Woods. It was noted in Dr. Woods report that either in 2011 or 2012, Applicant had sinus surgery; in July of 2016, Applicant had left shoulder surgery on a non-industrial basis. Applicant was also diagnosed with hypertension, hypoglycemia, high cholesterol, anxiety, depression, sleep apnea, and diabetes. Dr. Woods also noted Applicant's bilateral knee condition was non-industrial. Joint Exhibit X.

  Applicant was represented by counsel and should have reasonably known about eligibility for SIBTF benefits before the five-year deadline, but the claim was filed almost ten years after injury. However, the Appeals Board found the record was not properly developed on this issue and granted reconsideration to further study the facts.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10444379 · 2023-10-27 · Riverside District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4In this case, the WCJ failed to properly perform the analysis set forth in section 3208.3 and as described in Rolda. First, the WCJ failed to find whether applicant's alleged psychiatric injury involved actual events of employment, i.e., injury AOE/COE, under section 3208.3(b)(1). In making this determination, the WCJ must go through all of the predicate events alleged in the history given to the QME(s), as well as the trial testimony and all other relevant record evidence. To the extent that any of the predicate events are contradicted, the WCJ should make express factual findings regarding each event and resolve any factual disputes. The WCJ should then determine which of the predicate events constitute actual events of employment and articulate this determination in a manner that satisfies sections 5313, 3208.3, Rolda,3 and Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc).4

  WCJ failed to properly analyze all alleged employment events and their causation under Labor Code section 3208.3 and Rolda; credibility findings were flawed; remand required for proper analysis and findings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13173519 · 2023-10-13 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 25, 2023 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury while employed as a cook on December 15, 2019. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the WCJ's Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the July 25, 2023 Findings and Order, and return this matter to the Presiding Judge for reassignment to a new WCJ for a trial de novo. This is not a final decision on the merits of any issues raised in the petition and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration of the WCJ's new decision.

  The WCJ found the applicant's testimony not credible and rejected the medical evidence based on the unsupported injury mechanism; the WCAB rejected the WCJ's credibility finding and remanded for trial de novo to reconsider the injury issue with proper consideration of medical evidence and presumption of compensability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10641716 · 2022-10-07 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6However, we will delete any finding of temporary disability. Applicant testified that he worked from his return from his heart temporary disability on February 21, 2016 until his retirement in July of 2017. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of February 13, 2019 trial at p. 9.) There was no evidence or allegation that applicant retired due to any disability or defendant not accommodating applicant's work restrictions. In State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp.Appeals Bd. (Rodarte) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 998, 1003 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 579], the Court of Appeal made clear that neither medical treatment nor modified work restrictions without wage loss, in and of themselves, are sufficient to constitute "disability." "[T]here is no compensable temporary disability until the worker suffers wage loss." (Rodarte, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1003.) "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Here, applicant did not present any evidence supporting wage loss as a result of his orthopedic injury. We therefore find that applicant did not prove entitlement to temporary disability in this case.

  Applicant did not prove entitlement to temporary disability for orthopedic injury due to lack of wage loss evidence despite medical treatment and work restrictions.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10146961 · 2021-12-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Applicant claims the WCJ should have decided permanent disability on the reporting of Dr. Ha'eri dated February 10, 2016 where in Dr. Ha'eri found muscle spasm, tenderness and guarding to the cervical spine and found a Category II, 5% whole person impairment. (Exhibit "5", p. 2). He returned her to full duties without any restrictions. (Exhibit "5", p. 3). Dr. Ha'eri stated 100% of the injury was caused by the specific injury, but had not reviewed any automobile accident records. Dr. Ha'eri did not discuss the "history of prior motor vehicle accident injuries" but mentioned them only in passing. However, the WCJ found the reporting of Marc Freidman, M.D. dated January 23, 2016 more persuasive. Dr. Freidman discussed the February 2, 2015 motor vehicle accident where Applicant had injuries to her neck and eye when she hit the steering wheel, with treatment for two months. (Exhibit "5", p. 2). Although the Applicant told Dr. Freidman of her subjective complaints of left sided stiffness and aching and "subjective sense of decreased sensation fourth and fifth fingers on the left, Dr. Freidman comments that he finds, "no true

  The WCJ found the reporting of Dr. Freidman more persuasive than Dr. Ha'eri and denied permanent disability and future medical care, which was affirmed on reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ18376723 · 2025-10-09 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a Petition for Removal from the "Order Rescinding Order to Disclose Medical History" ("Order") issued on January 29, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ rescinded a prior order for applicant to disclose his medical history pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4663(d) and ordered the parties to meet and confer on the issue and file for a hearing should they not resolve their dispute.

  The Appeals Board found that defendant did not establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to defendant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13188687 · 2024-04-05 · Fresno 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 →
• ADJ1628659 · 2024-03-05 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact that was issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 28, 2023. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.1

  The Board granted reconsideration to study factual and legal issues and remanded to the WCJ to consider the Compromise and Release, indicating procedural disposition rather than merits determination.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1415534 · 2023-09-25 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Previously, we issued our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Opinion) on March 29, 2023. On April 17, 2023, applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, on the basis that he had new evidence that he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence. (Lab. Code, § 5903(d).) Applicant contends that the level of his impairment has increased since the Joint Findings and Award (F&A) of March 10, 2020.

  The petition was denied because the new evidence of increased impairment was not raised in a timely petition for reconsideration and was more akin to a petition for new and further disability, which was not properly before the Board.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7573009 · 2021-08-03 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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 defendant's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to defendant.

  The Appeals Board found that the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to defendant.

  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.

• LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD J. SINGER
• LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD J. SINGER, APLC
• LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD SINGER
• Law Offices of Edward J. Singer
• LAW OFFICES EDWARD J. SINGER
• Law Offices of Edward Singer
• Edward J. Singer

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.