California WCABLaw firm

Purinton, Jimenez, Labo & Wu

Purinton, Jimenez, Labo & Wu is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (3), AOE/COE (2) and Permanent disability rating (2). They were heard most often at Anaheim, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Law Office of John Bloom (1).

Decisions: 11
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 9

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 of 10 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

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

Who they face

10 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Anaheim 2
Van Nuys 2
Los Angeles 1
Riverside 1
Sacramento 1
Salinas 1
San Diego 1
San Jose 1
Santa Rosa 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.

6 for the defense
3 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.

ADJ19555636 · 2025-06-24 · San Diego District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order and Award (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 9, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her psyche while employed during the period November 7, 2023, through January 26, 2024, as an Occupational Therapy Assistant. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.
The WCJ found no objective evidence of harassment or bullying constituting actual events of employment causing the psychiatric injury. The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and not disturbed. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's findings and denied the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7850534 · 2024-09-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred
Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 8, 2024 Partial Findings of Fact, Award and Orders, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his lumbar spine and psyche and did not sustain injury to his bilateral lower extremities, ankles (right ankle solely due to cumulative trauma claim), left wrist, right shoulder, or right upper extremity (all right elbow and wrist due to cumulative trauma injury), in the form of sleep and sexual dysfunction, kidney, stomach, brain/hematoma, head, headaches, and liver, arising out of and in the course of employment. The WCJ deferred the issue of injury to applicant's left shoulder pending further development of the record.
The WCJ deferred the issue of injury to the left shoulder pending further development of the record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15137561 · 2024-03-13 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.21.) The WCJ ordered the matter off calendar over defense objection. The WCJ further appended to the Minutes a list of the various assertions of defendant with respect to the standing of the parties, and the applicability of the statute of limitations. (Id. at p. 2.) On May 24, 2023, defendant filed the instant Petition for Removal (Petition) averring threshold issues of the identity of the parties claiming benefits, their standing, if any, and the need to adjudicate the issue of whether compensation is barred by the running of the statute of limitations. Defendant contends the August 6, 2021 Application for Adjudication was filed after decedent's date of death, and was not signed by decedent. Defendant therefore asserts that applicant's counsel lacks the standing to file the August 6, 2021 application, and that there is no "party" identified in the record as claiming benefits. Defendant further avers that the application for death benefits filed on December 21, 2021, was filed more than one year from the date of death
The Appeals Board found ambiguity and lack of clarity in the pleadings regarding the identity of the applicant and standing, and the applicability of the statute of limitations, warranting further proceedings to clarify these threshold issues.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ9166594 · 2023-07-14 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on June 6, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on October 12, 2013, as a registered nurse by defendant, Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, permissibly self-insured for workers' compensation liability, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her lumbar spine, psyche, and excretory system, resulting in permanent partial disability of 28%.
The WCJ found 28% permanent partial disability; applicant contended it should be greater and challenged overpayment credit; the Board remanded for further consideration due to settlement.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7436343 · 2023-01-24 · Santa Rosa District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.134. The psychological QME Dr. Antonio Madrid did not engage in ex parte communication with applicant in violation of section 4062.3 or violate AD Rule 41.5, and there is no basis for a replacement psychological panel.
The Appeals Board found the communication was insignificant and inconsequential, not warranting replacement of Dr. Madrid as the QME, reversing the WCJ's prior order.
Official decision · page 13 →
ADJ9648968 · 2022-09-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6version of section 3352 operative at the time of applicant's injury, excludes hirers of workers injured before they have performed 52 hours of work from being deemed the "employer" of the injured worker, the finding that applicant was Hach-Hearne's employee lacks support. (Cedillo, supra, at pp. 144§ 145.) Accordingly, we will amend the F&A to find that applicant was not an employee of Hach-Hearne, the owner of the residential dwelling where the injury occurred, pursuant to section 3352(h).
The WCAB found that the applicant was not an employee of Heather Hach-Hearne under section 3352(h) because the applicant worked less than 52 hours for her before injury, which excludes the homeowner from being deemed the employer.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ12849972 · 2025-05-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3The Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) was served on December 31, 2024, and included a recipient in Texas. The Petition in this matter was filed on March 13, 2025. This date was more than 30 days after the service of the F&A and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.2
The petition was filed more than 30 days after service of the Findings of Fact and Award and was not verified as required, making it untimely and subject to dismissal.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ15061583 · 2024-11-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on August 27, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained injury to the lumbar spine on December 29, 2019, and that applicant was employed by defendant at the time of injury.
The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations, denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11171321 · 2022-01-26 · Anaheim 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. 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.
The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse 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.

PURINTON, JIMENEZ, LABO & WU, LLP
PURINTON, JIMENEZ, LABO & WU
Purinton, Jimenez, Labo & Wu
Law Offices of Purinton, Jimenez, Labo & Wu
Purinton, Jimenez, Labo & Wu, LLP

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.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Purinton, Jimenez, Labo & Wu

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the defense

3 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.

ADJ19555636 · 2025-06-24 · San Diego District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order and Award (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 9, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her psyche while employed during the period November 7, 2023, through January 26, 2024, as an Occupational Therapy Assistant. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.

The WCJ found no objective evidence of harassment or bullying constituting actual events of employment causing the psychiatric injury. The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and not disturbed. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's findings and denied the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7850534 · 2024-09-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 8, 2024 Partial Findings of Fact, Award and Orders, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his lumbar spine and psyche and did not sustain injury to his bilateral lower extremities, ankles (right ankle solely due to cumulative trauma claim), left wrist, right shoulder, or right upper extremity (all right elbow and wrist due to cumulative trauma injury), in the form of sleep and sexual dysfunction, kidney, stomach, brain/hematoma, head, headaches, and liver, arising out of and in the course of employment. The WCJ deferred the issue of injury to applicant's left shoulder pending further development of the record.

The WCJ deferred the issue of injury to the left shoulder pending further development of the record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15137561 · 2024-03-13 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.21.) The WCJ ordered the matter off calendar over defense objection. The WCJ further appended to the Minutes a list of the various assertions of defendant with respect to the standing of the parties, and the applicability of the statute of limitations. (Id. at p. 2.) On May 24, 2023, defendant filed the instant Petition for Removal (Petition) averring threshold issues of the identity of the parties claiming benefits, their standing, if any, and the need to adjudicate the issue of whether compensation is barred by the running of the statute of limitations. Defendant contends the August 6, 2021 Application for Adjudication was filed after decedent's date of death, and was not signed by decedent. Defendant therefore asserts that applicant's counsel lacks the standing to file the August 6, 2021 application, and that there is no "party" identified in the record as claiming benefits. Defendant further avers that the application for death benefits filed on December 21, 2021, was filed more than one year from the date of death

The Appeals Board found ambiguity and lack of clarity in the pleadings regarding the identity of the applicant and standing, and the applicability of the statute of limitations, warranting further proceedings to clarify these threshold issues.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ9166594 · 2023-07-14 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on June 6, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on October 12, 2013, as a registered nurse by defendant, Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, permissibly self-insured for workers' compensation liability, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her lumbar spine, psyche, and excretory system, resulting in permanent partial disability of 28%.

The WCJ found 28% permanent partial disability; applicant contended it should be greater and challenged overpayment credit; the Board remanded for further consideration due to settlement.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7436343 · 2023-01-24 · Santa Rosa District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.134. The psychological QME Dr. Antonio Madrid did not engage in ex parte communication with applicant in violation of section 4062.3 or violate AD Rule 41.5, and there is no basis for a replacement psychological panel.

The Appeals Board found the communication was insignificant and inconsequential, not warranting replacement of Dr. Madrid as the QME, reversing the WCJ's prior order.

Official decision · page 13 →

ADJ9648968 · 2022-09-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6version of section 3352 operative at the time of applicant's injury, excludes hirers of workers injured before they have performed 52 hours of work from being deemed the "employer" of the injured worker, the finding that applicant was Hach-Hearne's employee lacks support. (Cedillo, supra, at pp. 144§ 145.) Accordingly, we will amend the F&A to find that applicant was not an employee of Hach-Hearne, the owner of the residential dwelling where the injury occurred, pursuant to section 3352(h).

The WCAB found that the applicant was not an employee of Heather Hach-Hearne under section 3352(h) because the applicant worked less than 52 hours for her before injury, which excludes the homeowner from being deemed the employer.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ12849972 · 2025-05-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3The Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) was served on December 31, 2024, and included a recipient in Texas. The Petition in this matter was filed on March 13, 2025. This date was more than 30 days after the service of the F&A and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.2

The petition was filed more than 30 days after service of the Findings of Fact and Award and was not verified as required, making it untimely and subject to dismissal.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ15061583 · 2024-11-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on August 27, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained injury to the lumbar spine on December 29, 2019, and that applicant was employed by defendant at the time of injury.

The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations, denying the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11171321 · 2022-01-26 · Anaheim 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. 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.

The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse 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.

PURINTON, JIMENEZ, LABO & WU, LLP

PURINTON, JIMENEZ, LABO & WU

Purinton, Jimenez, Labo & Wu

Law Offices of Purinton, Jimenez, Labo & Wu

Purinton, Jimenez, Labo & Wu, LLP