Mallery & Stern

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue2
• QME/AME process2
• Permanent disability rating1
• Permanent total disability1

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 8
• Los Angeles 2
• Riverside 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.

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

Counted over 11 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.

• ADJ16326594 · 2025-10-31 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2(Minutes of Hearing, dated December 4, 2023, at p. 2:12.) The parties proceeded to trial on December 4, 2023 and framed for decision the sole issue

  The applicant's email to the QME constituted impermissible ex parte contact under Labor Code section 4062.3, requiring replacement of the QME panel to preserve impartiality and the appearance thereof. The WCAB rejected the applicant's argument that the QME did not actually receive or review the email, emphasizing that prejudice need not be shown and the appearance of impartiality is crucial.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ14483830 · 2025-05-30 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2On December 1, 2021, the parties proceeded to trial, framing issues of injury AOE/COE and "entitlement to replacement panel and disqualification of Dr. Woythaler as QME based upon the Applicant's [October 1, 2021] Petition." (Minutes of Hearing (Minutes), December 1, 2021, at p. 2:8.)

  The WCJ's May 20, 2022 decision did not address the issues framed for decision, including whether the QME reporting was substantial medical evidence and whether the report complied with section 4628, thus failing to make findings on all facts involved as required by section 5313. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the WCJ decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ8240882 · 2025-04-21 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant State of California, California Institute for Women (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the January 21, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in Case No. ADJ8240882 that applicant, while employed as a correctional officer from February 24, 1996 to September 26, 2012, sustained industrial injury to his heart, psyche, right wrist, respiratory system, lumbar spine, right shoulder, left shoulder, cervical spine, right knee, and left knee. The WCJ further found in ADJ8240881 that applicant sustained injury on October 4, 2011 to his right wrist, right shoulder, and left upper extremity, and in Case No. ADJ8615401, that applicant sustained injury on September 25, 2012 to his right knee, left lower extremity, and lumbar spine. The WCJ determined that the respective percentages of permanent disability arising out of the three injuries could not be parceled out. The WCJ further determined that either by adding applicant's permanent disability corresponding to the various body parts, or because applicant is not feasible for vocational retraining, applicant's industrial disability was both permanent and total. The WCJ further determined that the apportionment opinions of the evaluating medical-legal physicians did not constitute substantial evidence and thus issued an unapportioned award.

  Applicant is permanently and totally disabled based on inability to participate in vocational retraining; defendant failed to prove valid apportionment to nonindustrial factors; WCJ's additive method for disability percentages was unnecessary to the outcome.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7037201 · 2024-12-06 · Marina Del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2Pursuant to Findings and Award issued on May 22, 2013, applicant sustained injury to his psyche, cardiovascular system (in the form of hypertension), cervical-thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and in the form of sleep disorder and sexual dysfunction while employed as a police officer by defendant City of Baldwin Park from May 13, 2002 to November 20, 2009. Applicant's injuries resulted in temporary total disability from November 20, 2009 to May 13, 2011, and thereafter in permanent partial disability of 83 percent. (Findings and Award and Order Following Remand After Reconsideration, dated May 22, 2013.)

  The WCJ's finding of 100% permanent and total disability was initially supported by additive approach medical opinions, but the WCAB found the record incomplete under the en banc Vigil and Nunes decisions requiring further analysis of ADLs and valid medical apportionment. The WCAB rescinded the award and remanded for further proceedings and record development.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ19257864 · 2024-10-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3Currently, while we received the aforementioned Report of May 7, 2024, and are in receipt of the WCA's Findings and Award, the transcript of proceedings (Transcript), as well as several medical reports from Omar Tirmizi, M.D. and Clive Segil, M.D., the record still does not include applicant's deposition transcript, the reports of Dr. Bakshian, as well as most of applicant's exhibits, and all of defendant's exhibits.

  The Appeals Board found the record incomplete, lacking key exhibits and transcripts, preventing meaningful review and due process.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9663226 · 2026-03-18 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the notice of hearing issued on October 21, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

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

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17686848 · 2025-12-19 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the November 6, 2025 orders granting continuance and denying defendant's petition for a protective order and return this matter to the trial level to create a record.

  Removal was granted because the WCJ issued orders without creating a record, violating due process and causing irreparable harm to the defendant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10981839 · 2022-02-04 · Riverside District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In this case, as in Lewis, it is undisputed that defendant issued applicant's permanent disability benefits without withholding funds sufficient to pay the attorney's fee. It is also clear that for the entire pendency of this action defendant has been on notice that applicant was represented by an attorney because the Application for Adjudication of Claim indicates that applicant is represented and identifies that applicant's attorney by name. The Application for Adjudication of Claim was served on defendant by proof of service dated August 10, 2017. Consequently, pursuant to Lewis, defendant was required to withhold funds to pay applicant's attorney's fees and is therefore subject to liability for failing to do so.

  The court found that defendant was on notice of applicant's attorney's representation and was required to withhold funds for attorney's fees from permanent disability advancements. The court awarded 12% attorney's fees based on the total permanent disability advancements paid to applicant, rejecting defendant's argument that fees are only payable after an award is issued. Public policy supports payment of fees on advancements to encourage retention of cases.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ8300946 · 2021-12-30 · Marina del Rey 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.1 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 deny removal.

  Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted and failed to show that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy if final adverse decision issued.

  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 MALLERY & STERN
• MALLERY & STERN
• Mallery & Stern
• MALLERY & STERN, APC

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.