Abramson Labor Group

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Apportionment1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 5
• Oakland 2
• Sacramento 2
• San Jose 2
• Fresno 1
• Redding 1
• Riverside 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.

• 10 for the defense
• 2 for the applicant
• 2 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.

• ADJ20478767 · 2026-05-08 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Based on our review of the record, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. There is a lack of substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's finding that applicant did not sustain injury to his alleged non-psychiatric body parts. By July 25, 2025, applicant had alleged injury to his head in the form of headaches, teeth, and circulatory system. In the initial evaluation on July 29, 2025, Dr. Abenes noted applicant's complaints related to his heart, headaches, and teeth. (Applicant Exhibit #1, at pp. 5, 7, 13.) Substantial medical evidence regarding causation to the alleged non-psychiatric body parts is necessary to render a determination on the issue of whether or not applicant sustained a separate and distinct injury from the psychiatric injury and that, in turn, is not subject to section 3208.3(d).

  The WCAB found the record was not properly developed with substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's finding of no injury to non-psychiatric body parts. The Board has a duty to further develop the record where evidence is insufficient and granted reconsideration to allow further proceedings on the non-psychiatric claims.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16889988 · 2026-04-21 · Oakland District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10In its Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration, defendant SCIF asserts that its initial rejection of the interpreter's invoice was based on a good faith misunderstanding of the network billing rules where the adjuster mistakenly applied the medical provider network rule under section 4616 to an interpreter cost under section 5811. We agree with cost petitioner that even if the initial error by the adjuster was in good faith, the subsequent delay was simply unreasonable, and sanctions and attorney fees should be issued against defendant for its conduct and failure to promptly investigate, pay or dispute cost petitioner's invoice.

  Defendant SCIF delayed payment of a valid invoice for 15 months without reasonable excuse, constituting bad faith and tactics solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, warranting sanctions and attorney fees.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ19868198 · 2026-04-20 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the January 27, 2026 Findings and Order ("F&O"), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that applicant did not suffer a work-related injury, based upon a lack of supporting medical evidence. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by failing admit and consider reports prepared by a Qualified Medical Evaluator ("QME") that found applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment ("AOE/COE").

  The WCJ initially found no medical evidence supporting injury, but the WCAB found the QME reports were critical evidence that should have been admitted and that the WCJ erred in denying remote testimony and in proceeding without considering the QME reports, thus remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15875626 · 2025-06-30 · Riverside District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In the instant matter, Dr. Simpkins indicated that for the cervical spine, he would apportion "25% of the current level of impairment to the presence of age-related degeneration, 20% of the current level of impairment to preexisting injury, and 55% of the current level of impairment to the direct result of the injuries arising out of and occurring in the course of her employment on a continuous trauma basis." (Exhibit 1, p. 20.) Dr. Simpkins explained that "available diagnostic studies reveal[ed] moderate to severe spondylosis" and that "at least two MVAs" resulted in "injury to the cervical spine[.]" (Ibid.) Reference to the specific dates and findings of the alleged studies were not indicated. Specifics regarding the dates of the MVAs and corresponding injuries and diagnoses were also not provided.

  The WCJ found Dr. Simpkins's apportionment opinion conclusory and lacking detailed reasoning as required by Escobedo and Yeager, thus not substantial evidence; the Appeals Board denied reconsideration affirming this finding.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ21537607 · 2026-06-29 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10In the absence of a record, we are unable to evaluate petitioner's contentions. Consequently, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration as premature and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We direct the parties and the WCJ to the en banc decision in Gaines for guidance with respect to approval of C&Rs that both WCJs and parties must follow. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, the WCJ may treat the Petition as a petition to set aside the OACR, conduct further proceedings, and create a record as to whether there are grounds for setting aside the OACR. After the WCJ issues a decision, any aggrieved party may timely seek reconsideration.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as premature because the WCJ had not yet conducted a hearing or rescinded the OACR within the 15-day period after the petition was filed, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ20984366 · 2026-02-26 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the "Joint Order Vacating Pursuant 8 Cal. Code of Regs. § 10955(d)" issued on December 9, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ rescinded a prior order denying defendant's petition for dismissal and ordered the parties to meet and confer on the issue.

  The petition was dismissed as moot because the relief sought by the defendant had already occurred after the applicant amended the pleadings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20803692 · 2025-10-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the

  Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy if final decision adverse to petitioner issued.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17849976 · 2025-10-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

  The matter was pending on reconsideration, but the parties reached a proposed settlement, so the WCAB rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for settlement consideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19820146 · 2025-05-12 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal following the January 14, 2025 Minute Order taking the above matter off calendar, as well as the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, as well as the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

  Defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of bifurcation and taking matter off calendar; medical evidence needed before trial on post-termination defense issue.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19077549 · 2025-04-15 · Van Nuys 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 removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19039264 · 2025-03-24 · Van Nuys 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 because the petitioner did not show 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 →
• ADJ15868749 · 2024-08-02 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on June 10, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

  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.

• ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP
• Abramson Labor Group
• ABRAMSON LABOR

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.