California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Weitzman & Estes

Law Offices of Weitzman & Estes is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Substantial evidence / credibility (2) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Fresno. The firm it meets most often is Barkhordarian Law Firm (1).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 7

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 6 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

8 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

Van Nuys 3
Fresno 2
Anaheim 1
Bakersfield 1
Marina del Rey 1
Sacramento 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.

4 for the applicant
4 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ18102810 · 2024-09-30 · Fresno District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3(1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [93 Cal.Rptr. 15, 480 P.2d 967, 36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93, 97].) Defendant fails to present evidence controverting the reasons or grounds for QME Dr. Allen Fonseca's reporting. As stated in the Report, the WCJ relied upon evidence in the form of QME Dr. Fonseca's reporting and applicant's uncontroverted testimony. (Report, p. 2.) Thus, the WCJ was presented with no good reason to conclude that Dr. Fonseca's opinion is unpersuasive--and we also conclude that it constitutes substantial medical evidence. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].)
The Board found that the PQME Dr. Fonseca's report was substantial medical evidence, supported by the applicant's unrebutted testimony and consistent with the medical and factual record, rejecting defendant's contentions of speculation and internal inconsistency.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ18102810 · 2024-08-12 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Defendant continued denial of applicant's claim and the matter was submitted for decision on the following issues: Injury arising out of and in the course of employment; temporary disability with the employee claiming periods pursuant to PQME; whether the applicant's claim is barred under LC section 3600(A)(10) as a post-termination claim; and the legal date of injury under 5412.
Dr. Fonseca's report was found substantial medical evidence supporting the cumulative trauma injury causation and date of injury as November 7, 2023, not barred as a post-termination claim under LC 3600(a)(10).
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ8233486 · 2024-02-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administration law judge (WCJ) on November 29, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, back, digestive tract, psyche, internal (in the form of asthma), sleep, sexual dysfunction, shoulders, chest and headaches, and that all other issues were deemed moot. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing from his claims. The WCJ also entered into evidence applicant's Exhibits 5 through 9 and 41, defendant's Exhibit BB, and the Court's Exhibits's ZZ, ZZ-2 and ZZ-2. The WCJ struck applicant's Exhibit 42 (Transcript Testimony of the applicant, Volumes I and II dated February 3, 2012 and April 16, 2012).
The WCJ's November 29, 2023 F&O found no injury AOE/COE, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficient and the WCJ's credibility determination flawed, leading to rescission and reassignment for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8996318 · 2023-09-22 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Section 4610(l) permits a defendant to defer utilization review when it disputes liability for injury or treatment. (§ 4610(l); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, Rule 9792.9.1(b).) Rule 9792.9(b)(1) requires that, among other things, that the deferral be served on the injured worker, in addition to the injured worker's attorney if the injured worker is represented by counsel. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, Rule 9792.9.1(b)(1).) Here, there is no indication that either the June 21, 2022 or the October 31, 2022 Notices of Deferred RFA were served on applicant. (Defendant Exhibits F and G, Notices of Deferred RFA dated June 21, 2022 and October 31, 2022.) As such, the Notices of Deferred RFA are defective and deemed untimely. (Dubon v. World Restoration (Dubon II) (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298, 1306 [2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 131] (Appeals Board En Banc); Bodam v. San Bernardino County/Dept. of Soc. Servs. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1519, 1522 [2014 Cal, Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 156].) Under these circumstances, the WCAB may decide on the issue of medical necessity of the requested treatment based on substantial evidence. (Dubon II at p. 1312; Bodam at p. 1522.) We agree with the WCJ that the treatment requested is reasonable, necessary, and a compensable consequence of the industrial injury.
The WCAB found that defendant did not timely serve the Notices of Deferred RFA on the applicant, rendering them defective and untimely, thus allowing the WCAB to decide on the medical necessity based on substantial evidence. The WCJ's finding that the requested treatment is reasonable, necessary, and a compensable consequence of the industrial injury was upheld.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ13150222 · 2021-10-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Minute Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 22, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ took the matter off calendar on the basis that expedited hearings are limited to claims with one or more accepted body parts.
The WCAB panel found that the WCJ's denial of an expedited hearing based on the absence of an admitted body part was invalid under Labor Code section 5502, and that the matter should be returned to the trial level for further proceedings with a complete evidentiary record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15636538 · 2026-04-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Next, defendant argues that applicant's Petition to Reopen should have been dismissed because it was skeletal. (Petition, p. 4, January 30, 2026, lines 1-15.) In Blanchard v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 590, 594-595, 40 Cal. Comp. Cases 784, cited by the WCJ in the Report, the Court of Appeals found that a petition to reopen that failed to specify the facts relied on, and was therefore technically insufficient, was not fatally flawed. We reach a similar conclusion here. Applicant titled her petition to reopen, "Petition to Reopen for New and
The WCJ and WCAB found the Petition to Reopen was not fatally flawed despite lacking specificity, as it put defendant on notice of the grounds and allowed discovery to proceed; defendant's Petition to Dismiss was denied without prejudice, allowing refiling if no new disability is proven.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ11565056 · 2025-10-23 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings of Fact and Order ("F&O") issued on April 22, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
Applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from alleged procedural violation; WCJ correctly denied replacement petition; removal denied.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9800810 · 2025-06-13 · Sacramento District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.5On the existing record it is not possible to establish which injury, or injuries, caused the current need for treatment to the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder. Although medical care was awarded for body parts in both ADJ3318010 and ADJ9800810, it is necessary to determine the current cause of treatment for each body part.
The Board found that the existing record did not contain substantial medical opinions to establish which injury caused the current need for treatment for the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder, and that further medical development was necessary before determining joint and several liability and administration of claims.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14777694 · 2023-05-26 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on April 10, 2023 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
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 WEITZMAN & ESTES
Law Offices of Weitzman & Estes
WEITZMAN ESTES
WEITZMAN & ESTES

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 Weitzman & Estes

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

4 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ18102810 · 2024-09-30 · Fresno District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3(1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [93 Cal.Rptr. 15, 480 P.2d 967, 36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93, 97].) Defendant fails to present evidence controverting the reasons or grounds for QME Dr. Allen Fonseca's reporting. As stated in the Report, the WCJ relied upon evidence in the form of QME Dr. Fonseca's reporting and applicant's uncontroverted testimony. (Report, p. 2.) Thus, the WCJ was presented with no good reason to conclude that Dr. Fonseca's opinion is unpersuasive--and we also conclude that it constitutes substantial medical evidence. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].)

The Board found that the PQME Dr. Fonseca's report was substantial medical evidence, supported by the applicant's unrebutted testimony and consistent with the medical and factual record, rejecting defendant's contentions of speculation and internal inconsistency.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ18102810 · 2024-08-12 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Defendant continued denial of applicant's claim and the matter was submitted for decision on the following issues: Injury arising out of and in the course of employment; temporary disability with the employee claiming periods pursuant to PQME; whether the applicant's claim is barred under LC section 3600(A)(10) as a post-termination claim; and the legal date of injury under 5412.

Dr. Fonseca's report was found substantial medical evidence supporting the cumulative trauma injury causation and date of injury as November 7, 2023, not barred as a post-termination claim under LC 3600(a)(10).

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ8233486 · 2024-02-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administration law judge (WCJ) on November 29, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, back, digestive tract, psyche, internal (in the form of asthma), sleep, sexual dysfunction, shoulders, chest and headaches, and that all other issues were deemed moot. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing from his claims. The WCJ also entered into evidence applicant's Exhibits 5 through 9 and 41, defendant's Exhibit BB, and the Court's Exhibits's ZZ, ZZ-2 and ZZ-2. The WCJ struck applicant's Exhibit 42 (Transcript Testimony of the applicant, Volumes I and II dated February 3, 2012 and April 16, 2012).

The WCJ's November 29, 2023 F&O found no injury AOE/COE, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficient and the WCJ's credibility determination flawed, leading to rescission and reassignment for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8996318 · 2023-09-22 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Section 4610(l) permits a defendant to defer utilization review when it disputes liability for injury or treatment. (§ 4610(l); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, Rule 9792.9.1(b).) Rule 9792.9(b)(1) requires that, among other things, that the deferral be served on the injured worker, in addition to the injured worker's attorney if the injured worker is represented by counsel. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, Rule 9792.9.1(b)(1).) Here, there is no indication that either the June 21, 2022 or the October 31, 2022 Notices of Deferred RFA were served on applicant. (Defendant Exhibits F and G, Notices of Deferred RFA dated June 21, 2022 and October 31, 2022.) As such, the Notices of Deferred RFA are defective and deemed untimely. (Dubon v. World Restoration (Dubon II) (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298, 1306 [2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 131] (Appeals Board En Banc); Bodam v. San Bernardino County/Dept. of Soc. Servs. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1519, 1522 [2014 Cal, Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 156].) Under these circumstances, the WCAB may decide on the issue of medical necessity of the requested treatment based on substantial evidence. (Dubon II at p. 1312; Bodam at p. 1522.) We agree with the WCJ that the treatment requested is reasonable, necessary, and a compensable consequence of the industrial injury.

The WCAB found that defendant did not timely serve the Notices of Deferred RFA on the applicant, rendering them defective and untimely, thus allowing the WCAB to decide on the medical necessity based on substantial evidence. The WCJ's finding that the requested treatment is reasonable, necessary, and a compensable consequence of the industrial injury was upheld.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ13150222 · 2021-10-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Minute Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 22, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ took the matter off calendar on the basis that expedited hearings are limited to claims with one or more accepted body parts.

The WCAB panel found that the WCJ's denial of an expedited hearing based on the absence of an admitted body part was invalid under Labor Code section 5502, and that the matter should be returned to the trial level for further proceedings with a complete evidentiary record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15636538 · 2026-04-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Next, defendant argues that applicant's Petition to Reopen should have been dismissed because it was skeletal. (Petition, p. 4, January 30, 2026, lines 1-15.) In Blanchard v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 590, 594-595, 40 Cal. Comp. Cases 784, cited by the WCJ in the Report, the Court of Appeals found that a petition to reopen that failed to specify the facts relied on, and was therefore technically insufficient, was not fatally flawed. We reach a similar conclusion here. Applicant titled her petition to reopen, "Petition to Reopen for New and

The WCJ and WCAB found the Petition to Reopen was not fatally flawed despite lacking specificity, as it put defendant on notice of the grounds and allowed discovery to proceed; defendant's Petition to Dismiss was denied without prejudice, allowing refiling if no new disability is proven.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ11565056 · 2025-10-23 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings of Fact and Order ("F&O") issued on April 22, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

Applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from alleged procedural violation; WCJ correctly denied replacement petition; removal denied.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9800810 · 2025-06-13 · Sacramento District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

Determinative passage · p.5On the existing record it is not possible to establish which injury, or injuries, caused the current need for treatment to the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder. Although medical care was awarded for body parts in both ADJ3318010 and ADJ9800810, it is necessary to determine the current cause of treatment for each body part.

The Board found that the existing record did not contain substantial medical opinions to establish which injury caused the current need for treatment for the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder, and that further medical development was necessary before determining joint and several liability and administration of claims.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14777694 · 2023-05-26 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on April 10, 2023 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →