Samuelsen, Gonzalez, Valenzuela & Brown

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 6
• Los Angeles 4
• Pomona 4
• Oxnard 3
• San Diego 3
• Santa Ana 3
• Oakland 2
• Riverside 2
• Sacramento 2
• Stockton 2
• Fresno 1
• Lodi 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.

• 26 for the defense
• 15 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 41 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.

• ADJ11754124 · 2026-05-26 · Pomona District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on February 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant's internal injury complaints are barred by Labor Code1 section 5410 because applicant failed to obtain substantial medical evidence establishing internal injury within five years from his date of injury.

  The WCJ's finding that applicant's internal injury complaints were barred by Labor Code section 5410 was unsupported due to lack of substantial medical evidence; applicant timely filed petition to reopen; record development needed; thus, reconsideration granted and matter remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10371658 · 2026-04-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In his Report, the WCJ further stated that: Although defendants' arguments were ultimately found to be incorrect, there is reasonable ambiguity in the regulations with respect to both whether settlement interpreting costs are allowed at all, as well as the amount. There is no binding en banc or appellate opinion to make defendants' position on this issue unwarranted.... Section 10421(6)(7), which defines sanctionable "bad faith actions or tactics" under Labor Code section 5813 as including presenting a claim or a defense, or raising an issue or argument, that is not warranted under existing law. Also mitigating against a finding of sanctionable conduct are the reasonable ambiguities in the law, which are to be considered under Section 10421(6)(7)(A), and the impression that defendants have preserved and raised this issue in good faith for the purpose of adjudication, which is to be considered under Section 1042l(b)(7)(B).

  The WCJ found, and the WCAB agreed, that there was reasonable ambiguity in the regulations regarding settlement interpreting costs and no binding authority, so defendant's position was not unwarranted or in bad faith. Thus, sanctions and attorney fees were not appropriate.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17870859 · 2026-04-23 · Lodi District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Given the above, we find that a QME in the specialty of neurology (MPN) to address the applicant's post-concussion headaches, post-concussion syndrome and closed head injury, as well as any industrial causation of same, is appropriate.

  The WCAB found good cause for an additional neurology panel based on Dr. Chow's recommendation, applicant's symptoms, and the stipulation of treating physician Dr. Lin reporting headaches, despite defendant's objection to industrial causation.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ9195893 · 2026-04-01 · San Diego District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Both applicant and defendant seek reconsideration of the Findings & Award (F&A) issued on October 21, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed as a plumber on April 23, 2012, sustained industrial injury to his back, right foot and psyche resulting in 100% permanent disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11252084 · 2024-07-05 · San Diego District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report and the Opinion on Decision of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration to amend Findings of Fact number 13 to find that applicant is permanently totally disabled. For the reasons stated below and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report and Opinion on Decision, both of which we adopt and incorporate, except as noted below, we will otherwise affirm the April 17, 2024 First Amended Findings and Award (F&A).

  The WCJ and panel found applicant permanently totally disabled based on medical and vocational expert opinions, including the vocational expert's finding of unemployability and corroboration by treating physicians, with no apportionment found.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8965291 · 2024-05-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett halted trial proceedings in eight cases by filing petitions for reconsideration that were indisputably without merit and filed for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay. Most of these petitions were filed on the morning of trial without any advance notice to the court, opposing counsel, or witnesses. Their conduct was deliberate, which is evidenced by both the pattern of filing such petitions in eight separate cases and their failure to appear in each of these cases after the petition for reconsideration was filed.

  The petitions for reconsideration were filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, were indisputably without merit, and caused significant delays and resource waste, warranting full sanctions.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8965291 · 2024-04-10Sanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.20NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that absent written objection in which good cause to the contrary is demonstrated, within twenty (20) days plus five (5) additional days for mailing (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1), 10600) after service of this Notice that pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 and Appeals Board Rule 10421 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421) the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board will order SUSAN GARRETT (CA BAR #195580), to pay sanctions and reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and costs, as follows:

  Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett repeatedly filed petitions for reconsideration of non-final orders, with the apparent intent to delay trial dates after being denied continuances, despite prior notice that such petitions were improper and sanctionable.

  Official decision · page 20 →
• ADJ15382349 · 2024-04-10Sanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted removal in these matters on our own motion to provide an opportunity to study and address the issues of sanctions and costs under Labor Code section 58131. Having completed our review, we now issue an Order of Consolidation and a Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions and Costs (En Banc).

  The Appeals Board found that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, which were indisputably without merit, justifying sanctions and costs.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7593685 · 2023-12-13 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8In this case, the record includes a formal rating by the Disability Evaluation Unit ("DEU") of 47% permanent disability, but the WCJ's determination that the vocational evidence successfully rebutted the scheduled rating failed to take into account Dr. Fisher's apportionment to non-industrial factors relevant to the disability caused by applicant's internal injuries.6 We further note that contrary to Nunes I and II, neither vocational expert considered Dr. Fisher's apportionment of the disability caused by applicant's internal injuries, as the vocational experts issued their reports before Dr. Fisher provided his final report, which rated applicant's internal disability and which included various apportionment determinations. Likewise, neither vocational expert reviewed Dr. Galarza's reporting on applicant's psychiatric disability, making their vocational opinions insubstantial even without consideration of the doctor's failure to comply with the requirements of Escobedo on apportionment.

  The WCJ's award of 100% permanent disability was rescinded because the vocational experts did not consider the apportionment opinions of Dr. Galarza and Dr. Fisher, requiring further proceedings to properly determine permanent disability and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• 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 →
• ADJ10834249 · 2022-05-09 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3This matter proceeded to trial on December 22, 2021. At trial the parties stipulated that the applicant age 62 on the alleged date of injury, while employed during the period April 12, 2016, through April 12, 2017, as a laborer, Occupational Group Number 360, at Tarzana, California, by Country Fresh Herbs, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his lumbar spine, neck, shoulders, knees, feet, and thoracic spine. The parties also stipulated that Applicant was employed by Country Fresh Herbs from 1995 to December 20, 2020 and that PQME Silverman found that the Applicant's entire period of employment was injurious. At the time of injury, the employer's workers' compensation carriers were Republic Underwriters for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016; Falls Lake Insurance Company for the period January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017; and Preferred Professional Insurance Company for the period January 1, 2018, through December 20, 2020. The sole issue presented for determination was the date of injury pursuant to Labor Code § 5412 and Labor Code § 5500.5, with Republic Underwriters contending that the liability period pursuant to Labor Code § 5500.5 is after its last date of coverage.

  The WCJ found that the date of injury for cumulative trauma was September 12, 2017, based on the presence of permanent disability and applicant's knowledge of the disability caused by employment on that date, supported by Dr. Silverman's evaluation and reports.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13077517 · 2021-12-13 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Dr. McSweeney stated in his February 18, 2020 report that "It is my medical opinion, based on the information provided, that the applicant did sustain an industrial related injury to the right knee when he was walking on uneven terrain. (Joint Exhibit 8. Page 10). He also stated under "Causation" that "The patient's present symptoms, descriptions of the injury, review of the provided medical records, and the physical examination are consistent with the mechanics of injury as described by the applicant (Joint exhibit 8, Page 9, EAMS Doc ID 35514230).

  The panel QME Dr. McSweeney's medical opinion, based on reasonable medical probability and supported by credible applicant testimony and medical records, constitutes substantial evidence that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment on 09/12/2019.

  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. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• SAMUELSEN, GONZALEZ, VALENZUELA & BROWN
• SAMUELSEN, GONZALEZ, VALENZUELA & BROWN, LLP
• Samuelsen, Gonzalez, Valenzuela & Brown
• SAMUELSEN GONZALEZ
• Samuelsen, Gonzalez, Valenzuela & Brown, LLP
• SAMUELSEN GONZALEZ VALENZUELA & BROWN
• Samuelsen, Gonzalez, Valenzuela and Brown
• SAMUELSEN GONZALEZ VALENZUELA & BROWN LLP
• SAMUELSEN, GONZALEZ, ET AL.
• Samuelsen Gonzalez

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.