Law Offices of Marvin L. Mathis

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE1
• Discrimination under Labor Code §132a1
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 5

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.

• 2 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record
• 1 for the applicant

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ10183569 · 2026-01-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the record fails to show how, if at all, the WCJ evaluated whether or not defendants retained control over applicant's work and how he "re-weighed" all the secondary factors...... We therefore conclude that the WCJ should develop the record on the issue of whether applicant was employed by defendants at the time of injury. Accordingly, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision. (Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, January 28, 2022, pp. 6-9.)

  The Appeals Board found the record insufficient to show how the WCJ applied the Borello factors and remanded for further development of the record on employment status.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ6620180 · 2025-05-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings of Fact and Order/Award (F&O) issued on January 27, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed as a police officer by defendant during the period January 1, 2004 through February 2, 2008, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his psyche; (2) an award was issued based on the parties' Stipulations with Request for Award dated April 3, 2012 for 17% permanent disability; (3) applicant was employed from March 1997 until his termination on July 14, 2009, based on a three day Board of Rights hearing; (4) applicant established a prima facie claim of Labor Code section 132a1 discrimination; (5) defendant did not have a legitimate business reason for the discrimination; and (6) defendant discriminated against applicant for having a work-related injury pursuant to section 132a.

  Applicant established a prima facie claim of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a based on credible testimony and evidence that defendant knew of the work-related injury and discriminated against applicant by terminating him without a legitimate business reason.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15294472 · 2022-03-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Included with each of the three letters is an unsigned Employee Acknowledgement Form that indicates that the Applicant would remain an employee of 5 Acres while performing alternative or modified duty with Friends Helping Friends, and that this temporary opportunity would not result in employment with Friends Helping Friends. The Applicant would still be expected to comply with 5 Acres' company policies. There is also an indication that the Applicant would continue to be covered under 5 Acres' workers' compensation program (DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT A-B and JOINT EXHIBIT C). The evidence reflects that the Applicant would remain an employee of Defendant while performing the modified or alternative work.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that 5 Acres made a valid bona fide offer of modified work through letters signed by Trecia Mongal, an HR employee of 5 Acres, and the offer complied with the applicant's medical restrictions. The applicant refused the offer without good cause, thus estopping her from claiming temporary disability.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16063526 · 2025-04-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on July 13, 2023 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, we vacate our order granting reconsideration and dismiss the Petition.

  Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner while matter was pending, leading to dismissal of the Petition and vacating of the order granting reconsideration.

  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 MARVIN L. MATHIS
• LAW OFFICES OF MARVIN L. MATHIS, P.C.
• LAW OFFICE OF MARVIN L. MATHIS, P.C.
• Law Offices of Marvin L. Mathis

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.