California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Michael Mansfield

Law Offices of Michael Mansfield is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2), AOE/COE (1) and Psyche AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Marina del Rey.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 4

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Los Angeles 3
Marina del Rey 2
Anaheim 1
San Bernardino 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 defense
3 returned for more record
1 for the applicant

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ10436761 · 2025-12-26 · Marina del Rey District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.7II. Applicant asserts in his petition that the WCJ erred in determining that he did not sustain industrial injury to his psyche based upon a finding that his claim is barred by the good faith personnel defense pursuant to Section 3208.3(h). Section 3208.3 governs claims for psychiatric injury. To establish that a psychological injury is compensable, an injured worker must show by
The Appeals Board found the WCJ's analysis incomplete regarding whether the applicant sustained a compensable psyche injury and whether the good faith personnel action defense applied, requiring further medical evidence and analysis.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ8270157 · 2025-01-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdeferred
Determinative passage · p.1In that decision, the WCJ found that the request for authorization (RFA) dated January 18, 2018 by Dr. Ahmed for home health services was not timely denied by Utilization Review (UR) and thus the WCAB retains jurisdiction over the treatment request. The WCJ further found that home health care (HHC) services were reasonable and necessary for the period January 18, 2018 through June 27, 2019, but not on an ongoing basis. The lien of Lucila Alfaro for HHC services provided to applicant for the period March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2022 was disallowed, as were attorney fees for that same period of time.
The WCJ found home health care services reasonable and necessary for a limited period but not ongoing; the petitioner contested the limitation and cited Patterson to argue the burden of proof lies with the defendant to show services are no longer required; the WCAB did not rule on the merits but returned the matter for settlement review.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8270157 · 2024-07-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued and served by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 14, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that the request for authorization (RFA) dated January 18, 2018 by Dr. Ahmed for home health services was not timely denied by Utilization Review (UR) and thus the WCAB retains jurisdiction over the treatment request. The WCJ further found that home health care (HHC) services were reasonable and necessary for the period January 18, 2018 through June 27, 2019, but not on an ongoing basis. The lien of Lucila Alfaro for HHC services provided to applicant for the period March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2022 was disallowed, as were attorney fees for that same period of time.
The WCJ found home health care reasonable and necessary from January 18, 2018 through June 27, 2019, but not ongoing, based on medical evidence and the lack of a continuous request for ongoing care. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the merits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9190713 · 2023-05-15 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings, Award, & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 2, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her left thigh (ADJ8214086), but did not sustain an industrial injury to any other body parts claimed in case number ADJ8214086, nor did applicant sustain an injury AOE/COE in any of the other cases litigated and submitted for decision.
The WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to support industrial injury to any other claimed body parts besides the left thigh, based on the medical opinions of Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Kim and the lack of credible evidence of industrial causation for other claims.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10775002 · 2021-02-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.3Defendant, the LOS ANGELES COUNTY HIGH DESERT HOS PIT AL, by and its attorneys of record, has filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Findings and Order of 23 November 2020. In it defendant argues two point: That the undersigned used the wrong benefit rate and that insufficient evidence exists to support the period of temporary total disability (TTD) awarded.
The record on the exact period of TTD was found insufficient and the matter was remanded for further development to determine the precise dates of TTD.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ8923414 · 2024-08-26 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a letter seeking "removal" of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) that is assigned to her cases. We will treat the letter as a Petition for Disqualification.
The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under the required legal standards to establish grounds for disqualification.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11532574 · 2021-11-30 · Marina del Rey 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 petitioner'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 petitioner.
The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
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 MICHAEL P. MANSFIELD
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL P MANSFIELD
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL MANSFIELD
Law Offices of Michael Mansfield
MICHAEL MANSFIELD LAW

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 Michael Mansfield

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the defense

3 returned for more record

1 for the applicant

Decisions

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

ADJ10436761 · 2025-12-26 · Marina del Rey District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.7II. Applicant asserts in his petition that the WCJ erred in determining that he did not sustain industrial injury to his psyche based upon a finding that his claim is barred by the good faith personnel defense pursuant to Section 3208.3(h). Section 3208.3 governs claims for psychiatric injury. To establish that a psychological injury is compensable, an injured worker must show by

The Appeals Board found the WCJ's analysis incomplete regarding whether the applicant sustained a compensable psyche injury and whether the good faith personnel action defense applied, requiring further medical evidence and analysis.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ8270157 · 2025-01-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdeferred

Determinative passage · p.1In that decision, the WCJ found that the request for authorization (RFA) dated January 18, 2018 by Dr. Ahmed for home health services was not timely denied by Utilization Review (UR) and thus the WCAB retains jurisdiction over the treatment request. The WCJ further found that home health care (HHC) services were reasonable and necessary for the period January 18, 2018 through June 27, 2019, but not on an ongoing basis. The lien of Lucila Alfaro for HHC services provided to applicant for the period March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2022 was disallowed, as were attorney fees for that same period of time.

The WCJ found home health care services reasonable and necessary for a limited period but not ongoing; the petitioner contested the limitation and cited Patterson to argue the burden of proof lies with the defendant to show services are no longer required; the WCAB did not rule on the merits but returned the matter for settlement review.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8270157 · 2024-07-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued and served by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 14, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that the request for authorization (RFA) dated January 18, 2018 by Dr. Ahmed for home health services was not timely denied by Utilization Review (UR) and thus the WCAB retains jurisdiction over the treatment request. The WCJ further found that home health care (HHC) services were reasonable and necessary for the period January 18, 2018 through June 27, 2019, but not on an ongoing basis. The lien of Lucila Alfaro for HHC services provided to applicant for the period March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2022 was disallowed, as were attorney fees for that same period of time.

The WCJ found home health care reasonable and necessary from January 18, 2018 through June 27, 2019, but not ongoing, based on medical evidence and the lack of a continuous request for ongoing care. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the merits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9190713 · 2023-05-15 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings, Award, & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 2, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her left thigh (ADJ8214086), but did not sustain an industrial injury to any other body parts claimed in case number ADJ8214086, nor did applicant sustain an injury AOE/COE in any of the other cases litigated and submitted for decision.

The WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to support industrial injury to any other claimed body parts besides the left thigh, based on the medical opinions of Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Kim and the lack of credible evidence of industrial causation for other claims.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10775002 · 2021-02-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.3Defendant, the LOS ANGELES COUNTY HIGH DESERT HOS PIT AL, by and its attorneys of record, has filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Findings and Order of 23 November 2020. In it defendant argues two point: That the undersigned used the wrong benefit rate and that insufficient evidence exists to support the period of temporary total disability (TTD) awarded.

The record on the exact period of TTD was found insufficient and the matter was remanded for further development to determine the precise dates of TTD.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ8923414 · 2024-08-26 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a letter seeking "removal" of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) that is assigned to her cases. We will treat the letter as a Petition for Disqualification.

The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under the required legal standards to establish grounds for disqualification.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11532574 · 2021-11-30 · Marina del Rey 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 petitioner'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 petitioner.

The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →