Michael Burgis & Associates

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 17
• Fresno 6
• Pomona 3
• Anaheim 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 16 for the defense
• 8 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 26 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.

• ADJ19575926 · 2025-06-30 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7This claim is straightforward. Though applicant was no longer "on the clock," he was performing the task for which he was hired by the defendant, caring for the patient, while still on the premises to which he was assigned by the employer. It is certainly anticipated by the employer that applicant should have continued to assist the patient, who struggled with balance, with walking to bed even though he had already clocked out for his shift. In fact, no testimony was elicited as to any policies the employer may have had for caretaking, clocking out, or even staying beyond one's shift. Given the nature of the employment, the employer could not have expected that applicant

  Applicant was performing a task for which he was hired, caring for the patient, while still on the employer's premises, and such activity was reasonably anticipated by the employer even though applicant had clocked out. No evidence showed applicant was acting inconsistently with his employment.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ7991744 · 2025-04-04 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9First, SIBTF correctly notes in its petition for reconsideration that the WCJ failed to issue any finding of fact as to causation of injury to applicant's psyche. Without such a finding, and to allow all parties due process, proper procedure is to return to the trial level. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284.) Upon return, applicant must establish through substantial medical evidence, predominant causation as to her claim of injury to the psyche pursuant to our holding in Rolda, supra. The evaluator has not broken down the elements that contribute to the aggravation of applicant's psychological injury, including industrial and non- industrial causes. The evaluator improperly conflated causation of psychological permanent disability with causation of injury. The current record is insufficient to determine causation of injury.

  The WCJ failed to issue findings on causation of injury to psyche; the record is insufficient to determine compensability; the matter is remanded for further development and proper analysis per Rolda.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10852874 · 2024-10-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1The following Opinion and Decision After Remand is issued pursuant to the January 2, 2024 Order made by the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) in B330312. In that Order, the Court honored the Appeals Board's request to annul the Board's Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration of June 6, 2023, and to remand this matter to the Board for further proceedings. For the reasons discussed below, and in place of our decision of June 6, 2023 that was annulled by the Court of Appeal, we will grant reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") on March 16, 2023, and we will rescind that decision and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and new decision by the WCJ.

  The WCJ's prior decision did not comply with the required legal standards for meaningful reconsideration and failed to address equitable estoppel; thus, reconsideration was granted and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11097620 · 2024-08-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5This matter proceeded to Trial on February 6, 2024, on the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant has reached maximum medical improvement status on a psychiatric basis. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to retroactive temporary disability benefits and the amount thereof. 3. Whether defendants have complied with the IMR determination, dated September 29, 2021. All other issues were deferred and bifurcated. (MOH, 2:17-24).

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant has not reached psychiatric MMI due to lack of treatment and is entitled to retroactive and ongoing temporary total disability benefits based on the opinions of the treating psychiatrist and QME.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15313468 · 2023-11-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Here, while applicant knew that he had symptoms, defendant has not met its burden to show that he knew that his injury was job-related until he was seen by primary treating physician (PTP) Dr. Rubanenko on October 26, 2021. (Ex. C, Report by Gabriel Rubanenko, M.D., dated 10/26/21, p. 16.) Therefore, the date of injury is October 26, 2021, the date when applicant first became aware that his disability was industrial after the examination by Dr. Rubanenko. We observe that in cases involving cumulative trauma injuries, the date of injury pursuant to section 5412 "also sets the date for the measurement of compensation payable, and all other incidents of the [worker's] right[s]." (Argonaut Mining Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 27, 31.)

  The WCAB found the date of injury to be October 26, 2021, when applicant first knew his disability was industrial, and that the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations or as a post-termination claim.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11738998 · 2022-04-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant ADP Total Source FLXVI, Inc., dba Three D Plastics, insured by American Home Assurance Company, administered by Helmsman Management Services, Inc. (Three D Plastics) seeks reconsideration of the May 11, 2021 Amended Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a machinist from May 1, 2016 to January 13, 2019, sustained industrial injury to the wrists, back and neck, with all other body parts deferred. Applicant had concurrent employment during the alleged cumulative trauma with Vallarta Supermarkets (Vallarta) and with Three D Plastics. The WCJ found that the reporting of Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Yuri Falkinstein, M.D. constituted substantial medical evidence, and relying thereon, determined that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE), attributable solely to her employment with Three D Plastics.

  The WCAB found substantial medical evidence in the AME Dr. Falkinstein's reports and deposition supporting that the applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment with Three D Plastics, rejecting the alternative causation scenario and the QME Dr. Guellich's report as not substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13786644 · 2022-04-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In the court's Findings & Order and Opinion on Decision the court found injury to applicant's face based on applicant's testimony regarding the mechanism of injury and testimony of Tony Jaques, regarding his observations of applicant's appearance after the incident occurred. In reviewing the record, the court agrees with defendant regarding the finding of injury to Applicant's face should be rescinded. The court believes this finding was premature and all body parts should be deferred. Therefore, the court recommends as to Findings Number 1, it should be amended to: the applicant while employed on August 26, 2020 as a carpenter helper, at San Bernardino, California, by Stater Bros. Markets, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, back, and left ear. Moreover, Findings Number 4 should be amended to: All body parts are deferred.

  The court found the initial injury finding to the face premature and amended it to defer all body parts, based on review of the record and testimony.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11934915 · 2022-03-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The sole question in ADJ11934915 asked is who was the employer of the injured workers on the date of injury 09/28/2018. Another included question referenced Labor Code § 2750.5. Defense counsel for AMPCO asks, separately from this issue, as to:

  The WCAB panel affirmed the WCJ's finding that AMPCO was the employer of the injured workers under Labor Code 2750.5, rejecting the adverse inference claims against CalMar and SCIF due to lack of evidence and failure to comply with subpoena issues.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11387984 · 2021-04-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Defendants' petition contends that by the findings and award, the undersigned acted without and in excess of his power, and that the findings of fact do not support the decision, finding, or order, and the evidence does not justify the findings of fact. More specifically, the petition contends that the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) report of Gustav Salkinder, M.D. is substantial medical evidence and that the undersigned should have relied on the medical expert opinions of Dr. Salkinder instead of relying on the medical expert opinions of primary treating physician (PTP) Behnam Sam Tabibian, M.D. regarding maximal medical improvement (MMI) and temporary disability.

  The WCJ found the PTP Dr. Tabibian's medical opinions more substantial and persuasive than the PQME Dr. Salkinder's, particularly regarding MMI and ongoing temporary disability, supported by applicant's credible testimony and correct application of AMA Guides definition of MMI.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11337498 · 2021-03-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeSJDB voucherapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5We disagree. Section 5000 states that "nothing in this division shall: (a) [i]mpair the right of the parties interested to compromise, subject to the provisions herein contained, any liability which is claimed to exist under this division on account of injury or death." (§ 5000, subd. (a).) Forcing applicant to wait until a maximum medically improved medical report issues before she can settle her claim, lest she forego her right to a SJDB voucher, impairs her right to compromise her claim in violation of section 5000. Furthermore, prohibiting her from engaging in discovery post-settlement to prove her entitlement to a SJDB voucher in effect abrogates her right to this benefit. Applicant is not claiming permanent disability indemnity, which has been settled, but she should be allowed to conduct discovery to prove permanent partial disability for purposes of establishing her entitlement to a SJDB voucher.

  The Board found that the applicant has the right to post-settlement discovery to establish entitlement to a SJDB voucher and that the medical report by Dr. Sisto was deficient and must be further developed to cure defects.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ20406289 · 2026-06-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order denying petition for joinder issued on April 10, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  Removal was granted because the WCJ issued the order denying joinder without creating a record, violating due process and causing irreparable harm to the defendant, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19112649 · 2026-01-26 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on November 26, 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, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final 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.

• MICHAEL BURGIS & ASSOCIATES
• MICHAEL BURGIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
• Michael Burgis & Associates
• MICHAEL BURGIS AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
• Michael Burgis & Associates, P.C.
• Michael Burgis and Associates
• MICHAEL BURGIS AND ASSOCIATES

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.