California WCABLaw firm
Los Angeles City Attorney
Los Angeles City Attorney is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Permanent total disability (2) and Apportionment (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Los Angeles.
- Decisions
- 11
- Years
- 2021–2026
- 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.
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 11 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.
- ADJ20015360 · 2025-02-27 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration on December 6, 2024, and issued a Notice of Intention to rescind the decision of the arbitrator in this matter (NIT) due to the lack of a complete record.
The Appeals Board rescinded the arbitrator's Findings and Award due to the lack of a complete record necessary for meaningful review and due process, and returned the matter to the arbitrator for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ19139846 · 2024-06-03AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of an arbitrator's Findings and Order of March 15, 2024, wherein it was found that "The left shoulder injury [applicant] sustained on October 2, 2022 did not arise out of an occur in the course of employment." The arbitrator thus issued an order that applicant take nothing by way of his claim. In the Opinion on Decision, the arbitrator explained that she found that applicant was not in the course of employment at the time of injury pursuant to Labor Code Section 3660(a)(9) which states the employer is not liable for any injuries which occur during voluntary participation in an off-duty recreational, social, or athletic activity not constituting a part of the employee's work related duties, unless it was a reasonable expectancy of, or was expressly or impliedly required by the employment.
Applicant was on paid on-call status at the time of injury, which was found to be within the course of employment. The injury occurred while weightlifting during on-call time, which was a reasonable activity under the circumstances. The personal convenience doctrine and relevant case law supported compensability.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ13624079 · 2023-11-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Applicant filed a claim for an injury to his ankle. He sustained an injury while participating in an off-duty kickboxing class at a private gym in a city unaffiliated with the Los Angeles Police Department. The Defendant only became aware of this activity on receipt of the claim. Defendant denied the claim on the basis of Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9) as an off-duty athletic unapproved activity by the department.
The applicant's injury during off-duty kickboxing was found not compensable because his belief that the activity was required by employment was not objectively reasonable, and the activity was not approved by the department manual.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ15505680 · 2022-10-21 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of an arbitrator's Findings and Order of July 27, 2021, wherein it was found that, while employed as a police officer during a cumulative period ending August 28, 2019, applicant did not sustain industrial injury in the form of endometrial cancer and to her gastrointestinal system. In so finding, the arbitrator found that defendant rebutted the cancer presumption codified at Labor Code section 3212.1.
Applicant met initial burden to raise the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1; defendant failed to rebut the presumption as it did not prove absence of a reasonable link between the cancer and industrial exposure to carcinogens; medical evidence did not disprove the link between exposure and endometrial cancer.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ9933107 · 2022-06-10 · Long Beach District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues. This is our Decision After Reconsideration. In the Findings and Award dated November 4, 2020, the Workers' Compensation Arbitrator ("Arbitrator") found that applicant is "100% permanently totally disabled pursuant to Labor Code section 4662(a)(4)1 total mental incapacity; and/or LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234," and that "all of applicant's current disability is apportioned to his March 6, 2015 industrial traumatic brain injury per the AMEs and QME in neurology, neuropsychology, urology, orthopedic and ophthalmology." Applicant's employer, the City of Los Angeles ("City"), filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the Arbitrator's decision.
The Board found the City's belated evidence irrelevant and upheld the medical evaluators' unanimous opinion that all disability was due to the 2015 industrial injury, not prior injuries or non-industrial causes.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ9671636 · 2022-01-12 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1For the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree that the opinions of Roger Bertoldi, M.D., and Martin Ross, Ph.D., are substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied. To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion "must be predicated on reasonable medical probability." (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases
The WCJ properly relied on substantial medical evidence from Dr. Bertoldi and Dr. Ross, who found the applicant permanently totally disabled due to brain injury under Labor Code 4662(a)(4). The WCJ's decision complied with Labor Code 4061(i) and Fitzpatrick precedent, and the Board denied reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10625599 · 2021-02-19 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Joint Findings and Award of November 24, 2020, wherein it was found that while employed on September 30, 2016 in case ADJ10625599 as a police officer, applicant sustained industrial injury to his neck and heart. It was also found that while employed as a police officer during a cumulative period ending on July 3, 2017 in case ADJ11025566, applicant sustained industrial injury to his hands/wrists and heart. In finding injury to the heart in both cases, the WCJ applied the "heart trouble" presumption of Labor Code section 3212.5.1 The WCJ then applied Labor Code section 4663(e) which states that section 4663 apportionment does not apply to "injuries or illnesses covered under Section[]... 3212.5," and issued a joint award of 79% permanent disability covering both injuries.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the heart injury presumption under Labor Code section 3212 and the anti-apportionment provision of section 4663(e) applied, making separate awards for the orthopedic injuries inappropriate and requiring a single joint award.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ6437738 · 2026-06-01 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.5Consequently, as discussed below, we apply the doctrine of equitable tolling pursuant to Shipley to this case. Here, the WCA issued the F&O on November 29, 2023. Applicant timely served his Petition on the WCAB on December 21, 2023. However, for reasons that are not entirely clear from the record, the Appeals Board did not actually receive notice of and review the petition until April 1, 2026.3 Accordingly, the Appeals Board failed to act on the petition within 60 days, through no fault of the parties. Moreover, according to Events in EAMS, the case was not transmitted to the Appeals Board until April 1, 2026.
The Appeals Board did not receive the petition or case file within 60 days due to administrative error, not the parties' fault; equitable tolling applies and a complete record is required for meaningful review.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ20015360 · 2024-12-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that defendant City of Los Angeles has sought reconsideration of the decision issued on June 4, 2024, by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) under Labor Code1 section 3201.7. The Petition for Reconsideration is attached as an exhibit to the Writ of Review filed with the Second Appellate District on October 28, 2024, and served on the Appeals Board at WCABWritUnit@dir.ca.gov.
The Appeals Board accepted the Petition for Reconsideration despite procedural irregularities in filing (email submission not compliant with rules) and granted it, issuing a Notice of Intention to Rescind the arbitrator's June 4, 2024 decision if required documents are not timely filed, ensuring due process and compliance with procedural rules.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ8911663 · 2024-06-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on November 6, 2020, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained an industrial injury on a cumulative basis through May 13, 2012 to the following body parts: "cognitive impairment, psyche, gait, hypertensive heart disease, apraxia/agnosia, headaches, erectile dysfunction, GERD, bilateral lower extremities (DVT), vision, sleeping, hypertension, and brain." (F&A, p. 1.) The WCJ further found that the disability in the form of sleep, cognitive, and psyche are categorized as mental and behavioral disorders under Labor Code1 section 4664(c)(1)(C). The WCJ categorized the following disabilities under the general provision of section 4664(c)(1)(G): hypertension, erectile dysfunction, GERD, deep- vein thrombosis of the bilateral lower extremities, gait derangement, apraxia, agnosia, and headaches.
The WCJ's assignment of body parts to body systems under section 4664(c) was not supported by substantial medical evidence, and the parties did not present the dispute directly to the evaluators for opinion on body systems, requiring further development of the record.
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.
- LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
- Los Angeles City Attorney
- LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY
- City of Los Angeles City Attorney's Office
- CITY ATTORNEY- LOS ANGELES
- CITY ATTORNEY, LOS ANGELES
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.