Levin & Nalbandyan

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 14
• Van Nuys 4

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.

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

Counted over 18 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.

• ADJ12142181 · 2026-03-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2On December 10, 2021, the WCJ issued her decision, determining in relevant part that applicant did not sustain his evidentiary burden of establishing injury AOE/COE occurring on February 20, 2019. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) In the accompanying Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that medical records in evidence from applicant's treating physician Dr. Fisher indicated an initial visit date of February 14, 2019, and that applicant testified that he had seen Dr. Fisher on the day following the specific injury. The WCJ observed that this date was inconsistent with the date provided by applicant to subsequent evaluating physicians. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 3-4.) The WCJ observed that payroll records demonstrate that applicant was not working on February 13, 2019, which would have been the day preceding his initial visit with Dr. Fisher. Because the history applicant provided to his evaluating physicians regarding the date of injury was not consistent with his trial testimony, the WCJ concluded that applicant had not met his

  The Board found the WCJ's credibility determinations supported by substantial evidence, including inconsistencies in applicant's testimony and medical and payroll records, and thus affirmed the denial of injury AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ20892439 · 2026-02-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8The undersigned issued a Findings of Fact on 11/13/2025. For tips the undersigned found that the Applicant could assist as many as 20 guests per day to and from their accommodations. The undersigned noted that an estimate of more than 20 guests per day was not credible. The Applicant estimated his tips to be between $5 and $10 per guest.

  The WCJ found the applicant's testimony regarding tips credible and unrebutted by substantial evidence, supporting the average weekly wage calculation including tips.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ19432814 · 2025-03-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Joint Findings and Order of December 19, 2024, wherein it was found that applicant issued an untimely strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel and that it was therefore defendant's right to select a QME from the remaining names on the panel. It was thus found that "Applicant's scheduling of a QME appointment with Dr. Patrick S. Hill was improper" and that "The parties are to proceed with Dr. Purab C. Viswanath as the Qualified Medical Evaluator." In these matters, applicant claims in case ADJ19432813 that while employed on February 15, 2024, an industrial injury was sustained to the right ring finger. Additionally, applicant alleges that while employed during a cumulative period ending on March 16, 2024 in case ADJ19432814, applicant sustained industrial injury to the foot.

  The WCAB found that the applicant's strike of Dr. Viswanath was untimely, but since the defendant did not timely select a QME after that, the applicant had the right to schedule an appointment with Dr. Hill, making the applicant's scheduling proper.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15800868 · 2024-04-16 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) of January 23, 2024, of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) finding in relevant part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment on October 21, 2021 and during the period December 30, 2020 to December 30, 2021 to her psyche and awarded applicant permanent disability of 24% less reasonable attorney fees, and future medical treatment. Defendant contends that applicant's claim was barred by the good faith personnel action defense.

  The WCJ found injury to psyche arising out of employment based on medical evidence from PQME Dr. Erika Holiday and factual findings on personnel actions; the WCAB granted reconsideration and deferred final decision for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11998537 · 2023-08-30 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7We therefore conclude that the record must be developed to address the issue of whether applicant has incurred disability that is both new and further, within five years of the date of injury. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, we suggest that the record be developed to facilitate the WCJ's review of all relevant medical and medical-legal reporting, including the reporting of Dr. Rinaldi, as well as applicant's primary and secondary treating physicians. Additionally, the testimony of applicant may prove germane to the inquiry. Once the record has been developed, the parties and, if necessary, the WCJ, may determine whether applicant has met the requirements for continuing jurisdiction under section 5410 and the standards set forth in Applied Materials, supra, and Sarabi, supra, of a demonstrable change in condition, including a new need for medical treatment, occurring within five years of the date of injury.

  The record contains insufficient medical evidence to determine whether applicant's alleged fibromyalgia and psychiatric sequelae resulted in a demonstrable change in condition; further development of the record is necessary.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12629307 · 2022-03-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 22, 2021 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed by defendant from June 15, 2016 through October 10, 2019, did not sustain injury arising out of or in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.

  The WCJ's original Findings and Order found no injury AOE/COE and barred the claim post-termination under LC Section 3600(a)(10), but the WCAB found the medical-legal reporting incomplete and inconsistent, requiring further development of the record and a new decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20209443 · 2026-01-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the October 10, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the F&O, the WCJ found that Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel number 7776039 was properly and validly served by fax on applicant by defendant.

  The petition was dismissed because the order was non-final and the petition was untimely under the amended Labor Code section 5909, which requires the Appeals Board to act within 60 days of case transmission. The case was transmitted on November 17, 2025, and the decision was issued on January 15, 2026, within the 60-day period, but the order was procedural and not final, making the petition improper.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20331276 · 2025-09-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on April 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ set the matter for a bifurcated trial on defendant's claim that applicant's injury is barred by the post- termination defense.

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to applicant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10299790 · 2024-04-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's decision was not a final order determining substantive rights or a threshold issue, and the petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16797995 · 2023-12-01 · Los Angeles 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, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) 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 the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15474722 · 2023-04-25 · Los Angeles 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 for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the petition as moot because it seeks review of an order which was subsequently superseded.

  The petition was dismissed as moot because the order it challenged was superseded by a replacement QME panel order and the matter was taken off calendar.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15120447 · 2023-02-13 · Los Angeles 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, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) 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 the petition 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 →

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.

• LEVIN & NALBANDYAN, LLP
• LEVIN & NALBANDYAN
• LAW OFFICES OF LEVIN NALBANDYAN
• LEVIN NALBANDYAN LAW
• LEVIN AND NALBANDYAN
• Levin & Nalbandyan
• LEVIN NALBANDYAN

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.