The Dominguez Firm

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 7
• Anaheim 2
• Pomona 2
• Marina del Rey 1
• Riverside 1
• San Bernardino 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.

• 7 for the applicant
• 4 for the defense
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 14 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.

• ADJ13968756 · 2026-05-11 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant The Hoplon Group, LLC (Hoplon) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 4, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant was employed by the Hoplon Group on December 1, 2020, the date of the alleged work-related injury.

  The WCJ found Hoplon Group, LLC was the employer on the injury date based on testimony and evidence, but deferred the issue of Liebo Builders' employment status due to unclear control and subcontracting arrangements.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19284835 · 2026-03-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7This case was set for trial before the undersigned solely on the issue of whether Applicant was an employee for Defendant at the time of the July 26, 2023 incident.

  Applicant accepted a job offer from defendant, was present on defendant's premises to complete onboarding paperwork as required by defendant, and the offer letter characterized the relationship as employment upon acceptance. The presumption of employment was established and not rebutted by defendant.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ9081819 · 2025-07-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.72. The Determination Regarding Apportionment of Permanent Disability Is Correctly Based on the Cause of Disability.

  The surgery was the sole cause of the current disability and no apportionment is merited under current law, as supported by the medical opinions and legal precedent.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10356268 · 2024-07-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2While reconsideration was granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case, the filing of the arbitration file in EAMS has still never been completed as required by WCAB Rule 10995.

  The Appeals Board found that due process requires a complete and organized record for meaningful review and that the incomplete record prevented meaningful review, necessitating rescission and remand.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16359966 · 2024-04-23 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Shortly before the scheduled end of the lunch break at 3:00 a.m., an automobile collided into the bus stop where Gus, Giovanni, and the Applicant were waiting. (MOE/SOE Dec 5, 2023, pg. 6, lines 3; 8-10.) As a result of this incident, the Applicant alleged to have sustained injuries to his legs, head, neck, hips, left hand, left middle finger, left ring finger, right knee, right ankle, left ear, vision, psyche, and in the form of loss of consciousness and depression. (Id., pg. 2, lines 5-9.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found the injury was within the special risk exception to the going and coming rule because the applicant was waiting for employer-provided transportation and engaged in reasonable activities within the field of risk created by the employment.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13511723 · 2022-09-28 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Applicant claimed injury in the form of COVID-19-related illness to the throat, loss of appetite, loss of taste, weakness, breathing, pneumonia, eyesight, hands, memory loss, headaches, loss of hair, psyche, neurological problems, and stress, while employed as a home health care worker by defendant State of California/IHSS (defendant) on June 26, 2020.

  Applicant qualified for the COVID-19 presumption under Labor Code section 3212.86; defendant failed to rebut the presumption with substantial evidence; applicant sustained injury in the form of COVID-19-related illness including pneumonia to the lungs; other body parts deferred.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ7384117 · 2021-10-29 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. Defendant contends, in substance, that the medical evidence does not justify the WCJ's finding that applicant sustained an industrial injury to her psyche, and that applicant is not entitled to permanent disability and further medical treatment for her alleged psyche injury.

  The Appeals Board found that defendant stipulated to psychiatric injury at trial and did not dispute causation until after permanent disability was added; the medical evidence and stipulation supported the finding of psychiatric injury and permanent disability with apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12047947 · 2026-05-26 · Marina del Rey District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Petitioner contends in relevant part that the Compromise & Release (C&R) contains an incorrect calculation for a third party credit and seeks to set it aside.

  The WCAB found the Petition for Reconsideration premature and dismissed it to allow the trial level to further consider the alleged incorrect third party credit calculation and create a full record for review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14297877 · 2024-10-14 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration in order to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. 1 This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board found that the petition for reconsideration was timely due to equitable tolling and that the record was incomplete, preventing meaningful review, thus rescinding the prior Findings and Order and remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15075519 · 2023-09-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant acting in pro per1seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) signed by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 14, 2023 and issued on March 16, 2023.2

  The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as untimely and unverified, making it premature for consideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10776417 · 2023-08-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Vensure HR, Inc. LCF LX Business Services, Inc. and Security National Insurance Company administered by AmTrust North America, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order of the workers' compensation arbitrator in this matter on March 9, 2022. In that decision, the arbitrator made findings, including a finding that the WCJ's decision dated March 17, 2020 in which it was found that the general employer of the applicant was Vensure HR, Inc. LCF LX Business Services, Inc., was a final decision and as such, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to disturb such a finding. The arbitrator further found that Security National Insurance Company was liable for the applicant's injury because they covered the general employer, Vensure HR, Inc. LCF LX Business Services.

  The Board rescinded the Findings and Order and returned the matter to the district office for further proceedings to allow review of the Compromise and Release, without ruling on the merits of the petition.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7707054 · 2023-06-19 · Los Angeles 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.

• THE DOMINGUEZ FIRM LLP
• DOMINGUEZ FIRM
• The Dominguez Firm
• THE DOMINGUEZ FIRM
• The Dominguez Law Firm
• DOMINGUEZ LAW FIRM
• Dominguez Firm

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.