Pennington & Trodden

What they litigate

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

• Permanent disability rating3
• Apportionment2
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 5
• Van Nuys 2

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.

• 7 for the applicant

Counted over 7 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.

• ADJ10409544 · 2024-06-28 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3I. The WCJ did not err by rating applicant's permanent disability using Occupational Group 370

  The WCJ's use of Occupational Group 370 for rating permanent disability was supported by substantial evidence including applicant's job duties and testimony, and the Disability Evaluator's opinion.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9689895 · 2022-06-06 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the February 3, 2020 Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed during the period from March 31, 1992 to July 28, 2014 as a structural aircraft mechanic, sustained admitted industrial injury to both shoulders, both knees, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and internal injury in the form of heart disease and hypertension. The WCJ further found 85% industrial apportionment with regard to the permanent disability attributable to the cervical and lumbar spines, left knee and right knee; 100% industrial apportionment with regard to left shoulder, right shoulder and right wrist; and 50% industrial apportionment with regard to hypertension and coronary artery disease. The WCJ also found that the injury herein caused 100% permanent disability.

  The WCJ found valid non-industrial apportionment but still found the applicant permanently and totally disabled based on the credible and unrebutted vocational expert opinion and applicant's testimony, which showed the applicant's total loss of earning capacity due to industrial injury.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12859017 · 2021-12-06 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.2*** 8. It is found that defendant is not entitled to credit for overpayment of temporary disability for the period from December 8, 2020 through February 15, 2021. It is found that defendant is entitled to credit for overpayment of temporary disability for the period February 16, 2021 through March 1, 2021.

  Defendant not entitled to credit for overpayment of temporary disability from 12/8/2020 to 2/15/2021 because treating physician reports indicated partial disability and defendant did not timely object to these reports under LC 4062; credit allowed from 2/16/2021 to 3/1/2021 based on AME report finding permanent and stationary status as of 2/15/2021.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ7306346 · 2025-12-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, the WCJ issued a NIT on February 25, 2016, and defendant was designated for service. Proof of service of the NIT, however, was not located in the evidentiary record and the WCJ confirmed as much in his August 23, 2021 Minutes of Hearing. Given that valid service was not completed, the NIT and the subsequent March 23, 20216 Order of Dismissal are thus void in ab initio.

  The Order of Dismissal dated March 23, 2016, was void ab initio due to lack of valid service of the Notice of Intent to Dismiss and procedural defects, thus good cause to vacate was found.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9689895 · 2025-09-19 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Accordingly, we deny removal. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on January 8, 2025, by the WCJ is DENIED.

  Defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate; the parties' failure to complete the PTCS was invited error or waived, and the PTCS was ultimately filed, rendering the issue moot.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9689895 · 2024-09-09 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3577.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker, supra, at 157- 158 citing Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Baskin) (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21]; Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 710 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].) Here, defendant issued an Objection to applicant attorney's Petition for Costs on August 2, 2022. Notwithstanding this Objection, the WCJ issued the August 11, 2022 Order without allowing defendant an opportunity to be heard.

  The WCJ failed to provide defendant with due process by not issuing a Notice of Intention and opportunity to be heard before ordering reimbursement of costs, warranting rescission and remand.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• Pennington & Trodden
• PENNINGTON & TRODDEN
• Law Offices of Pennington & Trodden
• PENNINGTON TRODDEN LAW

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.