Moore and Associates

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 15
• Long Beach 2
• Marina del Rey 2
• San Bernardino 2
• Anaheim 1
• Pomona 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.

• 13 for the defense
• 8 for the applicant
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 22 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.

• ADJ2755694 · 2025-10-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The WCJ's Report initially addresses the issue of the admissibility of the reporting of Dr. Miller, which was excluded from evidence because there was no evidence that a party first objected to a treating physician report as required under section 4061 and 4062. The Report observes, however, that the record contains a notice of denial of applicant's claimed injury of October 12, 2003, and that the report of Dr. Miller should have been admitted into evidence on the basis that it was obtained to address a compensability dispute under section 4060. (Report, at p. 3.) The WCJ thus concludes the reporting of Dr. Miller should have been received in evidence. Regarding applicant's claim of industrial sleep impairment, the WCJ observes that the reporting of AME Dr. Hirsch did not find industrial injury, and that the WCJ found the AME reporting to be the more persuasive and well-reasoned. (Id. at p.

  The WCJ initially excluded Dr. Miller's report for lack of objection to a treating physician report under sections 4061 and 4062, but the WCJ's Report found a notice of denial of claim before the report date, making the report admissible under section 4060 for compensability disputes. The WCAB agreed and ordered reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10908652 · 2025-09-16 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Joint Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision" (F&A) issued on June 4, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her psyche during the cumulative period ending on May 25, 2017. The WCJ further found that applicant sustained industrial injury to the psyche in her specific injury case but barred any permanent disability from such injury pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4660.1.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ erred in denying compensability of psychiatric cumulative injury and permanent disability. The medical record showed industrial injury to psyche on a cumulative basis and the QME's intertwined disability opinion required further development. The matter was returned for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11027585 · 2025-02-13 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4INTRODUCTION Applicant filed a timely, verified, Petition for Reconsideration on November 22, 2024, challenging the Findings and Award after Remand (F&A 2) dated October 30, 2024 and served on October 31, 2024 in the above-referenced matters. the applicant (Applicant) worked as a physician's assistant, Occupational Group Number 212, at Los Angeles, California, by St. John's Well Child & Family Center, Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by Athens Administrators. While so employed she sustained two industrial injuries: a specific injury on October 14, 2015, assigned ADJ11027585, to her lumbar spine, with sacroiliac involvement, psyche, and internal in the form of hypertension, upper GI and lower GI; and, a specific injury on December 31, 2015, assigned ADJ11027586, to her cervical spine, psyche, and internal in the form of hypertension, upper GI and lower GI. On May 3, 2023 the parties initially tried this case before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge, the stipulations and issues were framed, applicant provided testimony, and after time for submission of post-trial briefs the matters were jointly submitted on June 2, 2023.

  Applicant failed to provide evidence that her physical injury was catastrophic as required for increased permanent disability under the exceptions in Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B).

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9435746 · 2024-08-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Applicant's Exhibits 7-9, reports of prior PTP, Dr. Quesada, should similarly be admitted into the record. The WCJ argues that under AD Rule 9785(b)(1) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(b)(1)), applicant is not to have more than one PTP at any given time. There is no evidence in the record, however, to suggest that applicant was being seen by another PTP while Dr. Quesada served as applicant's PTP. Further, MPN issues aside, applicant is not prohibited from seeking a new PTP at any point in time and may replace a PTP for any number of reasons. Replacement, however, does not mean the reports of the prior PTP suddenly become invalid. Ultimately, the fact that the WCJ is unsure of Dr. Quesada's status is irrelevant insofar as the issue of admissibility is concerned. As with consulting physician reports, due process requires the admission of all relevant reports, including the prior PTP reports of Dr. Quesada.

  The WCJ excluded secondary and consulting physician reports and prior PTP reports, but the WCAB found no legal basis for exclusion and held due process requires admission of all relevant reports.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11027585 · 2024-05-28 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION Applicant contends that she is entitled to an increase in the impairment rating for her psychiatric injury because the injury was catastrophic pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4660.1(c)(2)(B). The issue was raised at trial, and the WCJ concluded that applicant's psychological disability arose out of her compensable physical injury and did not result from an exception in section 4660.1(c)(2). (Report, p. 8.) In addition to establishing an industrial injury by a preponderance of the evidence, applicant has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, both the overall level of permanent disability and that at least some of this permanent disability was industrially caused. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc).)

  The WCAB found that the WCJ did not properly analyze whether the psychiatric injury was catastrophic under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B) and remanded for further proceedings to develop the record and apply the Wilson factors.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11250045 · 2023-11-27 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11I find that applicant did sustain a psychiatric injury and is entitled to future treatment for it, but he is not entitled to an increase in rating by reason of the fact that his psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by the orthopedic injury, and the Labor Code precludes a rating for psychiatric injury caused by the physical injury to the left wrist. I find both Dr. Dorsey's and Dr. Lee's opinions as to industrial psychiatric injury to be adequately supported and substantial in regard to causation, but I find Dr. Lee's report to be more persuasive on the need for further medical treatment. Neither report supports a rating for disability impairment by reason of the psychiatric injury, insofar as the psyche injury was predominantly caused by a physical injury, and thus a rating is precluded per LC 4660.1(c)(1).

  Applicant's psychiatric injury was found to be predominantly caused by the orthopedic injury, and not by a violent act; thus, Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(1) precludes a permanent disability rating for the psychiatric injury.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ6692602 · 2022-07-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7With respect to applicant's assertion of aggravation of her diabetic condition, we observe that neither the reporting of Dr. Zlotolow nor that of Dr. Borsada provided an assessment of whether the alleged change in applicant's condition transpired within five years from the original date of injury. Further, we agree with the WCJ's observation that any reporting addressing the alleged aggravation of applicant's diabetes would need to address applicant's other concurrent medical conditions, including her nonindustrial brain surgery, right knee surgery, and thyroid condition. (Report, at p. 6.) Accordingly, we find the reporting of Drs. Zlotolow and Borsada fail to establish a causal connection between applicant's industrial injury and the claimed need for new treatment, or that the need for new treatment arose within the five years of the original date of injury of November 13, 2008. Applicant has not met the burden of establishing a new and further disability, arising within five years of the date of injury. (Cal. Lab. Code § 5410.)

  Applicant failed to prove new and further disability within five years of injury as required by Labor Code section 5410; medical evidence did not establish a causal connection or timely new disability.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ606784 · 2022-05-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order (F&O) issued on July 19, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in pertinent part that defendant did not violate Labor Code1 section 132a and ordered that applicant's section 132a petition be denied.

  Applicant failed to prove that defendant subjected him to disadvantages not visited upon other employees because of his industrial injury, and the WCJ's credibility determinations were accorded great weight.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11053430 · 2022-04-19 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Whether Applicant needs lumbar spine surgery on an industrial basis per PQME Gumbs or whether PQME Gumbs defers the need for surgery to another individual.

  The orthopedic QME, Dr. Gumbs, recommended surgery but deferred the specific type of surgery to the surgeon, making the record incomplete for adjudication. The Appeals Board found the record insufficient and remanded for further development, including obtaining a spinal surgeon's report.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ3550890 · 2022-03-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7As an AME, Dr. Friedman was presumably chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality. Therefore, his opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is a good reason to find that opinion unpersuasive. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114, 117].) However, for the reasons discussed above we are unable to determine his opinions and/or the basis for opinions regarding the period (or periods) that applicant was temporarily totally disabled, the date applicant's condition became permanent and stationary, the level of permanent disability caused by applicant's psychiatric injury, and apportionment to non-industrial factors. Thus, Dr. Friedman's reports and deposition testimony do not constitute substantial evidence as to these issues.3

  The Appeals Board found Dr. Friedman's opinion on temporary total disability periods not substantial evidence and remanded for further clarification.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ4467694 · 2022-01-21 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3applicant, through his attorney of record, Law Offices of Moore and Associates, has filed a verified, timely Petition for Reconsideration contending that the evidence does not justify the Findings of Fact and that the Findings of Fact do not support the decision, in the Findings and Order served on October 26, 2021, in which it was determined that the Applicant had not sustained new and further permanent disability as a result of his work related injuries on May 15, 2003, ADJ3736071, and during the period from May 15, 2002 to May 15, 2003, ADJ4467694. Although it was found that the applicant sustained a compensable consequence dermatological injury subsequent to surgery which did necessitate new and further treatment, the industrially related dermatological injury was found to have resolved without additional permanent impairment.

  The medical evidence, including agreed medical evaluators' reports, supported that the applicant did not sustain new and further permanent disability beyond the stipulated 70% impairment.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10894605 · 2021-10-14 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Defendant's contention in the petition for reconsideration is that the applicant did not meet her burden and prove that her husband death was related to his employment at Clorox. Defendant also contends that the reporting of Dr. Sachs is more accurate than that of Dr. Hirsch. The court found the applicant met her burden and that the reporting of Dr. Hirsch was far more persuasive on injury AOE/COE than the reporting of Dr. Sachs. The doctors must look at the record as a whole; the court does not believe Dr. Sachs did. As indicated in the opinion on decision, one of the issues the court wanted the doctors to address base on its prior orders for developing the record was, was the applicant's death related to his exposure to the chemicals at Clorox. Did it cause, contribute to, or hasten the applicant's demise in any way. Dr. Sachs made a finding that the applicant's death was not caused by his employment.

  The WCJ and Board found the applicant met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, relying on the persuasive medical opinion of Dr. Hirsch over Dr. Sachs, and unrebutted evidence of exposure to pulmonary irritants at work contributing to death from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

  Official decision · page 5 →

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.

• MOORE & ASSOCIATES
• MOORE AND ASSOCIATES
• Moore and Associates
• Moore & Associates
• MOORE 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.