Wachtel Law

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 16
• Van Nuys 2
• Los Angeles 1
• Salinas 1
• San Bernardino 1
• Santa Ana 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.

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

Counted over 18 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.

• ADJ11255137 · 2024-10-21 · Marina del Rey District OfficeCumulative traumadeferred

  Determinative passage · p.7While we agree that the WCJ properly found that applicant had sustained injury AOE/COE but based on the record before us, the issue of whether there is one or two cumulative trauma injuries requires further study. Moreover, the issue of the date of injury pursuant to section 5412 also requires further study because determination of the date requires that the issue of whether there was one or two periods of cumulative trauma be determined.

  The issue of whether there is one or two cumulative trauma injuries and the date of injury require further study, so final decision is deferred.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12542212 · 2024-09-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of June 10, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending on August 10, 2019 as a construction or maintenance worker, applicant did not sustain industrial injury as alleged to the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, cervical spine, shoulders, right foot, or in the form of headaches. The WCJ also found that applicant was not entitled to a presumption of injury pursuant to Labor Code section 5402(b). It was thus ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his workers' compensation claim.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ erred in finding no industrial injury and in rejecting the 5402(b) presumption without sufficient evidence of timely denial; the case was remanded for further development of the record on these issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3107843 · 2024-03-18 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on August 24, 2020, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In the F&A, the WCJ found that defendant was liable for penalties and attorney's fees for delaying reimbursement of replacement security system cameras, which maintained a security system that defendant previously authorized and installed in applicant's home.

  The WCJ found defendant liable for penalties and attorney's fees due to unreasonable delay in reimbursing the replacement security system, which was considered medical treatment as prescribed by the treating physician and previously authorized and paid for by defendant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13080332 · 2024-02-08 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.5It appears that Dr. Mirzaians is awaiting additional diagnostics and a re-evaluation of applicant before he addresses the issues of permanent disability and apportionment. However, it also must be noted that in his November 1, 2021 supplemental report Dr. Mirzaians discussed various inconsistencies in the record as to whether applicant sustained injury to his right shoulder, left shoulder, or both shoulders. (Joint Exh. 4, pp. 6 § 7.) To be substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be based on pertinent facts, on an adequate examination and on an accurate history. (Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra.) The inconsistencies in the medical record, as discussed by Dr. Mirzaians, render his earlier opinions not substantial evidence as to applicant's shoulder injury. Review of the record also indicates that Dr. Mirzaians did not review any medical records pertaining to, and did not provide an opinion as to, the claimed "fingers" injury.4 Therefore, the record does not contain substantial evidence regarding that issue.

  Inconsistencies in the medical record and lack of substantial evidence regarding shoulder and fingers injuries; issues deferred for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10590450 · 2022-11-10 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.4weeks for aggregate temporary disability payments per section 4656(c)(2). (Lab. Code, § 4656(c)(2).)3 The medical record reflects that his orthopedic condition was considered permanent and stationary as of June 21, 2017 per the orthopedic QME Dr. Schwarz. The WCJ explained in her Opinion on Decision that she based her decision regarding temporary disability and the permanent and stationary date on Dr. Schwarz's reporting. It appears that she inadvertently did not include the full year for the temporary disability end date in Finding of Fact No. 5 and also inadvertently stated 2021 as the permanent and stationary date in Finding of Fact No. 6.4 The record supports a finding that applicant was temporarily totally disabled from September 27, 2016 through June 20, 2017, with June 21, 2017 as the date his condition became permanent and stationary. We will consequently amend the F&A to reflect the correct temporary disability period and permanent and stationary date.

  The medical record, specifically the orthopedic QME Dr. Schwarz, supports that applicant was temporarily totally disabled from September 27, 2016 through June 20, 2017, and the statutory cap of 104 weeks applies.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ4316583 · 2022-05-09 · Salinas District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814mixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of March 2, 2022, wherein it was found that "Interest was payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula from the date of the Order issued on 2/22/21 until paid on 2/25/21" (Finding No. 5), "A penalty under [Labor Code] section 5814 is payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula on the unpaid interest" (Finding No. 6), and "A reasonable attorney's fee per [Labor Code] section 5814.5 is payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula...." (Finding No. 7.)

  The WCJ found interest payable from 2/22/21 to 2/25/21 and penalties under Labor Code section 5814 and attorney fees under section 5814.5. The WCAB denied applicant's petition for reconsideration but granted defendant's petition, finding defendant had genuine doubt about liability and did not unreasonably refuse payment, thus no penalties or attorney fees under these sections were warranted.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11978261 · 2022-05-09 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 4, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that defendant's denial of applicant's injury claim was untimely under Labor Code section 5402, that defendant successfully rebutted the Labor Code section 5402(b) presumption of compensability, and that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, bilateral shoulders, bilateral elbows, lumbar spine, and left leg, while employed by defendant; the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his injury claim.

  The WCAB found that the QME Dr. Gowey's well-reasoned medical opinion constituted substantial evidence that applicant sustained cumulative injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine, left shoulder, and left elbow, rejecting the pre-employment medical exam as insufficient evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12017211 · 2022-01-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9Here, having reviewed the trial record, including Dr. Kattar's report, it appears that the record does not contain substantial medical evidence upon which a finding on the issue of injury AOE/COE can be made. Dr. Kattar requested additional records and the results of diagnostic testing and thus his opinions currently lack a solid underlying basis. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Brooks) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 785, 797 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 379]; Escobedo, supra; Hegglin, supra.) Furthermore, he does not offer an opinion regarding the

  The record does not contain substantial medical evidence to support a finding on AOE/COE; Dr. Kattar's opinion was not based on sufficient records or diagnostic testing and did not address all relevant causation factors.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ12800076 · 2021-11-02 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 17, 2021 Finding of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a janitor on May 1, 2019, and December 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019, did not sustain a specific injury or a cumulative trauma injury arising out of or in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) by defendant C&R Restaurant Group dba Taco Bell.

  The WCJ's original decision found no injury arising out of employment, but the WCAB found the record insufficient due to the medical report not being properly admitted, warranting reconsideration and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13190803 · 2021-05-10 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3employment was not terminated by defendant. In turn, there was no notice of termination or layoff.

  Applicant resigned voluntarily, so the post-termination defense does not apply as there was no notice of termination or layoff by the employer.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13363828 · 2026-05-15 · Marina del Rey District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6whether applicant was entitled to payment of the full amount of accrued permanent disability benefits at the time of the Award on May 1, 2024. Specifically, the WCJ found it was inappropriate for defendant to satisfy a portion of attorney fees from the accrued permanent disability benefits owed to applicant before commuting the remaining balance from the far end of the Award. Based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits of defendant's arguments, and for the reasons discussed below, we find no basis to disturb the WCJ's findings.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that defendant improperly took attorney's fees from accrued permanent disability benefits before commuting the balance to the far end of the Award, causing an interruption of benefits to applicant, contrary to the stipulations and Labor Code section 5100.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17226307 · 2023-05-09 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on March 30, 2023 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition for removal, leading to dismissal.

  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.

• WACHTEL LAW
• Wachtel Law

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.