Albert & McKenzie

What they litigate

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

• Psyche AOE/COE1
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131

Where they appear

• Oakland 3
• Bakersfield 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Oxnard 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.

• 3 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record
• 1 for the applicant

Counted over 6 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.

• ADJ11199891 · 2024-03-18 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION WCAB Rules 10816 and 10510 govern electronic appearances. WCAB Rule 10816 states: "If a party intends to appear electronically at any hearing, they shall file a petition showing good cause pursuant to rule 10510." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10816.) WCAB Rule 10510 requires, among other things, that "a request for action by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board...shall be made by petition." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510.) Here, applicant's request for an electronic appearance lacked the formality typically associated with such a request under the rules, but the Board's rules "serve the convenience of the tribunal and the [litigants] and facilitate the proceedings. They do not deprive the tribunal of the

  The WCJ denied the request for electronic appearance due to untimeliness and lack of good cause, but the Board found insufficient evidence to support the denial and determined that due process was not provided, thus rescinding the denial and remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11351343 · 2021-05-04 · Oakland District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In the instant case, EDD appeared at the mandatory settlement conference on 02/25/2019 and participated in and signed the pretrial conference statement on that date. EDD participated in the 09/23/2019 mandatory settlement conference at which it resolved its lien with defendant. EDD participated in and signed the pretrial conference statement on 09/23/2019. EDD participated in the 07/15/2020 trial. The case-in-chief has not yet been resolved. In my Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision that issued on 08/17/2020, based on my review of the evidence, the relevant law, and the above analysis, I concluded that the requirements set forth in Labor Code section 4903.2 (a) through (d) were not met and found counsel for applicant was not entitled to an attorney's fee out of the Stipulation and Order resolving the lien of Employment Development Department dated 09/23/2019 over Employment Development Department's objection.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the requirements of Labor Code section 4903.2(a) through (d) were not met because EDD participated in the proceedings, and the case was not disposed of by compromise and release.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ18844740 · 2024-11-22 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.345 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, the WCJ's decision solely resolves an intermediate evidentiary / discovery issue. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration. As we made clear in our En Banc decision in Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg, (2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 462, 475-476 (En Banc), and further emphasized in our Significant Panel Decision in Reed v. County of San Bernardino (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases ___;

  The WCJ's order was not a final order, so reconsideration was not proper; the WCJ lacked authority to rescind the order after jurisdiction transferred to the Appeals Board; the Board rescinded both orders to clarify the record.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11376123 · 2024-07-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3In this case, the arbitrator issued the Findings and Order on November 9, 2020, and applicant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration on November 30, 2020. Thereafter, the Appeals Board failed to act on applicant' s petition within 60 days of its filing, through no fault of petitioner. Therefore, considering that applicant filed a timely petition and that the Appeals Board's failure to act on that petition was in error, we find that our time to act on applicant's petition was equitably tolled until 60 days after April 23, 2021.

  The Appeals Board failed to act on the timely petition for reconsideration within 60 days due to no fault of petitioner; equitable tolling applied, so reconsideration was granted and the matter remanded.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11421538 · 2022-05-23 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The Appeals Board's power to remove a case to itself under Labor Code section 5310 is discretionary and is generally employed only as an extraordinary remedy. (See Butte County v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Stultz) (1991) 56 Cal.Comp.Cases 312 (writ denied); Swedlow, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Smith) (1985) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 476 (writ denied).) To obtain relief under this provision, WCAB Rule 10955 requires that a party must establish either that "[t]he order, decision or action will result in significant prejudice" or "irreparable harm," and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955.) In this case, we are persuaded that the order vacating submission and for the creation of a supplement to the record after cost petitioner has had multiple opportunities to sustain its burden of proof will significantly prejudice defendant.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ erred in vacating submission to allow further development of the record after cost petitioner failed to support hourly rates with evidence, as this prejudiced defendant and was not appropriate under the circumstances.

  Official decision · page 4 →

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.

• ALBERT AND MCKENZIE
• ALBERT & MCKENZIE, LLP
• Albert & McKenzie
• ALBERT & MCKENZIE

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.