California WCABLaw firm

Schochet Solomon, LLP

Schochet Solomon, LLP is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (2) and Reopening / new and further disability (2). They were heard most often at Anaheim, then Los Angeles. The firm it meets most often is Equitable Law Firm (2).

Decisions: 9
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 5

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 of 8 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

2 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 3
Los Angeles 3
Marina del Rey 1
Oxnard 1
Van Nuys 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.

4 returned for more record
2 for the applicant
2 for the defense

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ13428207 · 2024-11-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.6With respect to the finding that applicant's claim is barred by the five-year statute of limitations under section 5410, we note that the defense of statute of limitations is an affirmative one. Defendant bears the burden of proving same. (Lab. Code, § 5409; Kaiser Found. Hosps. Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57, 67, fn. 8 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411] ["The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense (§ 5409), and the burden of proving it has run, therefore, is on the party opposing the claim."].) On this existing record, it appears that the defendant has failed to prove that the filing of the petition to reopen is untimely.
The record was insufficient to determine the date of injury or whether the petition to reopen was timely; the defense failed to meet its burden to prove untimeliness, so the matter was remanded for further record development.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ16130369 · 2024-10-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7We are unable to conduct meaningful review of the Petition or render a decision based on an incomplete record. Accordingly, as our decision after reconsideration, we will rescind the arbitrator's decision and return the matter to the trial level. When the WCA issues a new decision, any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration.
The Appeals Board found that due process was violated due to an incomplete record and administrative errors, preventing meaningful review and requiring rescission and remand for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ11564195 · 2024-07-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCA issued the Report dated December 8, 2021, however, the record does not include the decision that is challenged by applicant. Moreover, the record does not contain any identification of the stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.
The Appeals Board could not conduct meaningful review or render a decision based on an incomplete record, as the record did not include the challenged decision or identification of stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ8878645 · 2021-04-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of September 26, 2019, the workers' compensation arbitrator ("Arbitrator") found that applicant filed a timely petition to reopen, that because "the medical report of Dr. Jae Hyung Chon has been received...the record is complete to issue a decision," and that "there are not sufficient grounds to support a petition to reopen for new and further disability." Pursuant to the above findings, the Arbitrator denied applicant's petition to reopen.
The Arbitrator's summary denial lacked evidentiary and legal support, the medical report was not comprehensive, and further development of the medical record was required.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ21211765 · 2026-06-01 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ's decision includes a finding regarding threshold issues of employment and injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.
The WCJ's decision included threshold findings making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but the petition only challenged an interlocutory discovery order. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, so removal was not warranted.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ16131890 · 2026-05-05 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalnot_reached
Determinative passage · p.5Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10961, no WCJ or WCA shall issue any order in a case until the Appeals Board has denied or dismissed the petition for reconsideration or issued a decision after reconsideration. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) One of the purposes of WCAB Rule 10961 is to avoid inconsistent rulings and to prevent bifurcation. Thus, under WCAB Rule 10961, the WCA lacked authority to issue the decision of February 11, 2026, and we conclude that it is void ab initio. Consequently, we will vacate it, and we will dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration in response to the February 11, 2026 decision.
The WCA lacked authority to issue a second F&A while reconsideration was pending, and the record was incomplete for meaningful review. Due process and procedural rules require a complete record and prohibit further orders until the Appeals Board acts on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ18504248 · 2026-03-09 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on January 7, 2026. We did not receive a Report and there is no notice of transmission by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Thus, we conclude that the parties were not provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) and were not provided with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on January 7, 2026.
The Appeals Board found that the parties were not provided with required notice of transmission and the record was incomplete, preventing meaningful review and denying due process; therefore, the petition was granted and a Notice of Intention to rescind was issued.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ16131890 · 2025-10-13 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Here, the Findings and Award were served upon the parties on June 20, 2025, and the petition was filed with the Office of the Commissioners 25 days later, or on July 15, 2025. As such, we find applicant's petition timely filed.
The petition for reconsideration was timely filed, and the record required for review was incomplete, necessitating further action before a decision on the merits.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12146064 · 2021-05-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the Arbitrator issued the decision on November 23, 2020, serving it by mail on applicant and applicant's counsel, Barkhordarian Law Firm. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, December 18, 2020 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is dated December 21, 2020. A proof of service shows that the Petition for Reconsideration was mailed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on December 21, 2020 and it was filed in EAMS on January 5, 2021. Accordingly, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and will be dismissed.
The petition for reconsideration was not filed within the 25-day statutory period following service of the Arbitrator's decision, and the time limit is jurisdictional.
Official decision · page 2 →

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.

SCHOCHET SOLOMON, LLP
SCHOCHET SOLOMON
Schochet Solomon, LLP
SCHOCHET & SOLOMON

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 →

Schochet Solomon, LLP

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 returned for more record

2 for the applicant

2 for the defense

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ13428207 · 2024-11-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.6With respect to the finding that applicant's claim is barred by the five-year statute of limitations under section 5410, we note that the defense of statute of limitations is an affirmative one. Defendant bears the burden of proving same. (Lab. Code, § 5409; Kaiser Found. Hosps. Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57, 67, fn. 8 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411] ["The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense (§ 5409), and the burden of proving it has run, therefore, is on the party opposing the claim."].) On this existing record, it appears that the defendant has failed to prove that the filing of the petition to reopen is untimely.

The record was insufficient to determine the date of injury or whether the petition to reopen was timely; the defense failed to meet its burden to prove untimeliness, so the matter was remanded for further record development.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ16130369 · 2024-10-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7We are unable to conduct meaningful review of the Petition or render a decision based on an incomplete record. Accordingly, as our decision after reconsideration, we will rescind the arbitrator's decision and return the matter to the trial level. When the WCA issues a new decision, any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration.

The Appeals Board found that due process was violated due to an incomplete record and administrative errors, preventing meaningful review and requiring rescission and remand for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ11564195 · 2024-07-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCA issued the Report dated December 8, 2021, however, the record does not include the decision that is challenged by applicant. Moreover, the record does not contain any identification of the stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.

The Appeals Board could not conduct meaningful review or render a decision based on an incomplete record, as the record did not include the challenged decision or identification of stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ8878645 · 2021-04-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of September 26, 2019, the workers' compensation arbitrator ("Arbitrator") found that applicant filed a timely petition to reopen, that because "the medical report of Dr. Jae Hyung Chon has been received...the record is complete to issue a decision," and that "there are not sufficient grounds to support a petition to reopen for new and further disability." Pursuant to the above findings, the Arbitrator denied applicant's petition to reopen.

The Arbitrator's summary denial lacked evidentiary and legal support, the medical report was not comprehensive, and further development of the medical record was required.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ21211765 · 2026-06-01 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ's decision includes a finding regarding threshold issues of employment and injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.

The WCJ's decision included threshold findings making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but the petition only challenged an interlocutory discovery order. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, so removal was not warranted.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ16131890 · 2026-05-05 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalnot_reached

Determinative passage · p.5Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10961, no WCJ or WCA shall issue any order in a case until the Appeals Board has denied or dismissed the petition for reconsideration or issued a decision after reconsideration. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) One of the purposes of WCAB Rule 10961 is to avoid inconsistent rulings and to prevent bifurcation. Thus, under WCAB Rule 10961, the WCA lacked authority to issue the decision of February 11, 2026, and we conclude that it is void ab initio. Consequently, we will vacate it, and we will dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration in response to the February 11, 2026 decision.

The WCA lacked authority to issue a second F&A while reconsideration was pending, and the record was incomplete for meaningful review. Due process and procedural rules require a complete record and prohibit further orders until the Appeals Board acts on reconsideration.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ18504248 · 2026-03-09 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on January 7, 2026. We did not receive a Report and there is no notice of transmission by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Thus, we conclude that the parties were not provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) and were not provided with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on January 7, 2026.

The Appeals Board found that the parties were not provided with required notice of transmission and the record was incomplete, preventing meaningful review and denying due process; therefore, the petition was granted and a Notice of Intention to rescind was issued.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ16131890 · 2025-10-13 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Here, the Findings and Award were served upon the parties on June 20, 2025, and the petition was filed with the Office of the Commissioners 25 days later, or on July 15, 2025. As such, we find applicant's petition timely filed.

The petition for reconsideration was timely filed, and the record required for review was incomplete, necessitating further action before a decision on the merits.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12146064 · 2021-05-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the Arbitrator issued the decision on November 23, 2020, serving it by mail on applicant and applicant's counsel, Barkhordarian Law Firm. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, December 18, 2020 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is dated December 21, 2020. A proof of service shows that the Petition for Reconsideration was mailed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on December 21, 2020 and it was filed in EAMS on January 5, 2021. Accordingly, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and will be dismissed.

The petition for reconsideration was not filed within the 25-day statutory period following service of the Arbitrator's decision, and the time limit is jurisdictional.

Official decision · page 2 →