Perona, Langer, Beck, Serbin, Mendoza & Harrison

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Long Beach 22
• Bakersfield 3
• Anaheim 2
• Oxnard 2
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Ray 1
• Pomona 1
• Riverside 1
• San Diego 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.

• 20 for the defense
• 11 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 33 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.

• ADJ13582881 · 2026-06-26 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of March 16, 2026, wherein it was found that while employed as an assistant manager applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of a hernia and to the low back, causing the need for further medical treatment. Industrial injury to the hernia had been accepted by the defendant, but injury to the low back was contested. All other issues including date of injury, temporary disability, and permanent disability were deferred.

  The Appeals Board found substantial evidence supporting industrial injury to the low back based on the entire medical record and credible applicant testimony, favoring the treating physician's opinions over the PQME Dr. Shah's contrary opinion.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12588331 · 2026-04-27 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10In sum, we believe there is substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE for the lumbar

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine and neck supported by substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Graham and PTP Dr. Vanderhyde, and credible applicant testimony consistent with medical reports. The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no impeachable inconsistencies.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ14570760 · 2025-11-17 · Long Beach District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 14, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant has "chronic lung disease" for purposes of Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(I)1, which entitles her to receive up to an aggregate of 240 weeks of total temporary disability indemnity pursuant to section 4656(c)(3).

  The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence supports that applicant has a chronic lung disease industrially related to COVID-19, entitling her to up to 240 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, rejecting defendant's argument that the medical reports must use the exact phrase 'chronic lung disease'.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14852118 · 2025-07-14 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5We will defer the issue of permanent disability so that the evidentiary record can be further developed on the issue of apportionment. We note that this case was initially presented as a specific injury occurring on November 15, 2019. Qualified medical evaluator David S. Kim, M.D. opined that 15% of applicant's permanent impairment was attributable to factors other than the industrial injury. (December 20, 2022 report at p. 9.) Primary treating physician Dr. Etemad found that 10% of applicant's impairment was due to non-industrial factors. (June 17, 2022 report at p. 8.) Subsequently, Dr. Kim opined that applicant's injury was a cumulative trauma. However, Dr.

  The permanent disability issue was deferred for further development due to unclear apportionment analysis by medical evaluators.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16982310 · 2024-09-13 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4MC Carrier, LLC (hereafter defendant or employer) a self-insured employer under the laws of the state of Nevada, has filed a timely, verified Petition for Reconsideration dated July 1, 2024, challenging the Findings and Order dated June 13, 2024, determining that California has jurisdiction over the work injury sustained by the applicant (hereafter Applicant) on September 30, 2022, and that California law should apply. Defendant contends that the court erroneously exceeded its jurisdiction by finding the following:

  The Appeals Board has personal jurisdiction over the employer and subject matter jurisdiction because the injury occurred in California, the applicant is a California resident, and the contract of employment was accepted in California. The forum selection agreement favoring Nevada is unenforceable due to California's strong governmental interest in protecting its residents injured in California.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12250535 · 2023-11-27 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5On September 6, 2023, this WCJ issued a Findings of Fact and Order and Opinion on Decision, wherein it was found, in pertinent part, that: (1) Dr. Halbridge has standing to Pursue the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute; (2) The Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute is not the correct remedy in this matter; and (3) Dr. Halbridge was required to request IBR before pursuing the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute. The Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute was denied via Order and it was noted that the remaining issues are moot.

  The WCJ and WCAB panel found that the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute was not the correct remedy because the petitioner failed to request Independent Bill Review (IBR) after a second bill review, which is mandatory under Labor Code 4603.3 and 4603.6. The defective Explanation of Review (EOR) did not excuse the petitioner from the IBR process. The petition was denied accordingly.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10618904 · 2023-10-31 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2A "decision [of the WCAB] must be based on admitted evidence in the record." Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc). To the extent that applicant is arguing that the permanent disability awarded to him is insufficient, he must point to evidence in the record, or attach new evidence to his Petition for Reconsideration (Cal. Lab. Code, § 5903, subd. (d)) supporting a higher permanent disability rating. The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluators neurologist Robert Moore, M.D. and orthopedist George Watkin, M.D. It appears that the WCJ relied on this evidence and applicant has not articulated a basis why this evidence was insufficient, or why the record should be further developed.

  The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel QMEs Dr. Moore (neurology) and Dr. Watkin (orthopedics), which the WCJ relied on; applicant did not show why this evidence was insufficient or why the record should be further developed.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ8188338 · 2023-09-05 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2As the WCJ pointed out in his Report, defendant conveniently failed to address that in the Pre-trial Conference Statement as well as in trial, the parties stipulated to the increase found in section 4658(d) and improperly raised this issue for the first time in the Petition. (Pre-trial Conference Statement; Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE) dated May 2, 2023, pp. 3:7-9, § 7; 4:11-13, § 7.)

  The parties stipulated to the permanent disability rating and the 15% increase under Labor Code section 4658(d), and the Appeals Board declined to overturn the stipulation despite defendant's argument that the increase does not apply to inmate cases.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13239935 · 2022-12-29 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10The facts at hand are straightforward and undisputed. The Applicant was working an "on call" shift over the weekend. For the Applicant's job classification, being "on call" means being available by telephone to handle any issues that arise at the worksite that could be addressed telephonically. The Applicant also has the discretion to return to the worksite and address any issues in person. If the Applicant is required to return to the worksite, he is compensated for that travel time. (Applicant's Exhibit 8, Page 23). The shift lasted until Monday morning, at 8:00 a.m. The Applicant was on his way to the physical worksite on Monday morning, June 10, 2019, when he rear ended another motorist. (Applicant's Exhibit 7). The Applicant was injured in this accident and sustained injury to his head, with other complaints noted in medical reporting. (Applicant's Exhibits 1 § 6). He then subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. The issue at hand is whether the Applicant's injury during travel to the worksite is barred by the "Going and Coming Rule."

  The injury occurred during an on-call period where the applicant was rendering service and was compensated, thus the going and coming rule does not bar recovery under the exceptions recognized by case law and supported by the WCJ's credibility findings.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ8734121 · 2022-07-19 · Anaheim District OfficeApportionmentdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.8Although we are deferring issues of permanent disability and apportionment, we note that to be substantial evidence on the issue of the approximate percentages of permanent disability due to the direct results of the injury and the approximate percentage of permanent disability due to other factors, a medical opinion must 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. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 [2005 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 71] (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Further, a medical report is not substantial evidence unless it sets forth the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions. (Granado v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 69 Cal.2d 399, 407 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647] (a mere legal conclusion does not furnish a basis for a finding); Zemke v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 794, 799-801 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 358] (an opinion that fails to disclose its underlying basis and gives a bare legal conclusion does not constitute substantial evidence).) Thus, while we express no opinion as to the validity of the apportionment on the record before us, we note that valid apportionment must reflect the principles espoused above.

  The Board deferred the issue of apportionment pending further development of the record, noting that valid apportionment must be based on substantial evidence and reasonable medical probability, not speculation.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10724008 · 2022-07-11 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3City of Whittier, hereinafter "Petitioner", through its legal representative, filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration to the April 21, 2022, Findings and Award which found that applicant sustained 49% permanent disability to the left knee, left hip, and found compensable injury to the low back and sleep based on the reporting of Petitioner's original treating physician, Dr. Pham, rather than that of the Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr. Kolesnik. Petitioner asserts that the Court acted in excess of its powers, the evidence does not justify the Findings and the Findings do not support the Award.

  The court found the applicant sustained 49% permanent disability to the left knee and left hip, rejected apportionment due to lack of substantial medical evidence, and found the pain add-on reasonable and supported by medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11784547 · 2021-11-05 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6At the time of trial, the parties stipulated that applicant, while an inmate (OGN 460) on October 1, 2018, (ADJ11784547) at Los Angeles California by the County of Los Angeles at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his alleged employment (AOE/COE) to his lumbar spine, tailbone or coccyx, head neck and bilateral shoulders, and again on July 21, 2019, (ADJ12536627) to his right foot and toes, right lower extremity.

  Applicant was assigned to kitchen duty as a condition of incarceration, not by voluntary agreement or contract; no consent or consideration existed, and statutory compulsion negates an employment relationship.

  Official decision · page 6 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 18.

• PERONA, LANGER, BECK, SERBIN & HARRISON
• PERONA, LANGER, BECK & HARRISON
• PERONA LANGER
• PERONA, LANGER, SERBIN, BECK & HARRISON
• PERONA LANGER BECK SERBIN & HARRISON
• PERONA, LANGER, BECK, & HARRISON
• Perona, Langer, Beck, Serbin, Mendoza & Harrison
• PERONA, LANGER, BECK, SERBIN, MENDOZA & HARRISON
• PERONA, LANGER, BECK, SERBIN AND HARRISON
• Perona, Langer, Beck, Serbin & Harrison
• PERONA. LANGER, BECK, ERBIN & HARRISON
• PERONA, LANGER, BECK, ERBIN & HARRISON

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.