California WCABLaw firm

Amaro Baldwin LLP

Amaro Baldwin LLP is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2025. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (3), AOE/COE (2) and QME/AME process (2). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Long Beach. The firm it meets most often is Glauber Berenson Vego (1).

Decisions: 8
Years: 2023–2025
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 4

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 6 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

4 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

Van Nuys 5
Long Beach 1
Oakland 1
San Jose 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.

5 for the applicant
4 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 8 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ10266237 · 2025-08-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6II. We first address the sufficiency of the medical-legal evidence. The WCJ has determined that applicant sustained two industrial injuries, a specific injury of September 10, 2015, and a cumulative injury from September 10, 2005 to September 10, 2015. In both instances, the WCJ has based his findings on applicant's credible testimony and the reporting of AME Dr. Bertoldi. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 2.) The burden of proving industrial injury rests with the applicant. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705; LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644, 650 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253].) Where the question of industrial causation is beyond the bounds of ordinary knowledge, proof in the form of expert medical evidence is required. (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Willson) (1924) 195 Cal.174, 184 [11 IAC 277]; Ins. Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kemp) (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 911 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913].) In order to constitute substantial evidence on industrial causation, a reporting physician must state his or her opinion in terms of reasonable medical probability. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660]; LaTourette, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 650.) In his report of January 20, 2021,3 Dr.
The WCJ and WCAB found the AME Dr. Bertoldi's report to be substantial medical evidence based on reasonable medical probability, supported by review of treating neurosurgeon and pathologist opinions, and applicant's credible testimony.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ17611095 · 2025-02-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Based on the scant record before us, when applicant filed the first written objection to dismissal on August 15, 2024, the WCJ should have either sustained the objection, dismissing defendant's petition, or set the matter for hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550, 10832.)
Applicant timely objected to dismissal and demonstrated ongoing medical treatment and willingness to proceed; the WCJ should have sustained the objection or set the matter for hearing rather than dismissing the cases.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ18204962 · 2024-11-18 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant submitted Stipulations with Request for Award, which was not signed by defendant. Given the lack of signature by defendant, there is no evidence of an agreement, much less a meeting of the minds. As there was no meeting of the minds, e.g., no stipulations, there was no contract, and no basis for the issuance of the Award, rendering the Award void ab initio.
The Award was based on Stipulations not signed by defendant, indicating no mutual consent or meeting of the minds, thus no valid contract or basis for the Award, violating defendant's due process rights.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ17453317 · 2024-06-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Injury aoe/coe It was found by the undersigned that Applicant sustained a work-related injury to his right foot and shin as he described.
The evidence including medical records, photos, and credible testimony supported the finding of industrial injury to the right foot and shin on 1/23/2023, rejecting the employer's alternative theory.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10266237 · 2023-05-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The parties subsequently reached an accord to utilize Roger Bertoldi, M.D. as an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) in neurology. AME Dr. Bertoldi evaluated applicant and issued a report dated January 20, 2020.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the participation of applicant's sister in the AME evaluation was necessary and permissible because the applicant's ability to communicate was compromised, and the sister was effectively transmitting information on applicant's behalf, consistent with precedent in Belling and Trujillo.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ17674058 · 2024-11-13 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Absent same, we are unable to determine if good cause to take the case off calendar exists at this juncture due to a lack of an adequate record. Therefore, we must rescind the Order and return this matter to the calendar for a status conference for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Removal is warranted because the WCJ took the case off calendar without making a record or providing a basis for the decision, resulting in substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to applicant; the record was inadequate to support the order.
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.

AMARO BALDWIN LLP
AMARO BALDWIN
AMARO BALDWIN LAW FIRM
AMARO BALDWIN TUSTIN
Amaro Baldwin LLP
AMARO|BALDWIN

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 →

Amaro Baldwin LLP

Decisions

Years

2023–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

4 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ10266237 · 2025-08-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6II. We first address the sufficiency of the medical-legal evidence. The WCJ has determined that applicant sustained two industrial injuries, a specific injury of September 10, 2015, and a cumulative injury from September 10, 2005 to September 10, 2015. In both instances, the WCJ has based his findings on applicant's credible testimony and the reporting of AME Dr. Bertoldi. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 2.) The burden of proving industrial injury rests with the applicant. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705; LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644, 650 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253].) Where the question of industrial causation is beyond the bounds of ordinary knowledge, proof in the form of expert medical evidence is required. (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Willson) (1924) 195 Cal.174, 184 [11 IAC 277]; Ins. Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kemp) (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 911 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913].) In order to constitute substantial evidence on industrial causation, a reporting physician must state his or her opinion in terms of reasonable medical probability. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660]; LaTourette, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 650.) In his report of January 20, 2021,3 Dr.

The WCJ and WCAB found the AME Dr. Bertoldi's report to be substantial medical evidence based on reasonable medical probability, supported by review of treating neurosurgeon and pathologist opinions, and applicant's credible testimony.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ17611095 · 2025-02-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Based on the scant record before us, when applicant filed the first written objection to dismissal on August 15, 2024, the WCJ should have either sustained the objection, dismissing defendant's petition, or set the matter for hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550, 10832.)

Applicant timely objected to dismissal and demonstrated ongoing medical treatment and willingness to proceed; the WCJ should have sustained the objection or set the matter for hearing rather than dismissing the cases.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ18204962 · 2024-11-18 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant submitted Stipulations with Request for Award, which was not signed by defendant. Given the lack of signature by defendant, there is no evidence of an agreement, much less a meeting of the minds. As there was no meeting of the minds, e.g., no stipulations, there was no contract, and no basis for the issuance of the Award, rendering the Award void ab initio.

The Award was based on Stipulations not signed by defendant, indicating no mutual consent or meeting of the minds, thus no valid contract or basis for the Award, violating defendant's due process rights.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ17453317 · 2024-06-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Injury aoe/coe It was found by the undersigned that Applicant sustained a work-related injury to his right foot and shin as he described.

The evidence including medical records, photos, and credible testimony supported the finding of industrial injury to the right foot and shin on 1/23/2023, rejecting the employer's alternative theory.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10266237 · 2023-05-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2The parties subsequently reached an accord to utilize Roger Bertoldi, M.D. as an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) in neurology. AME Dr. Bertoldi evaluated applicant and issued a report dated January 20, 2020.

The WCJ and WCAB found that the participation of applicant's sister in the AME evaluation was necessary and permissible because the applicant's ability to communicate was compromised, and the sister was effectively transmitting information on applicant's behalf, consistent with precedent in Belling and Trujillo.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ17674058 · 2024-11-13 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Absent same, we are unable to determine if good cause to take the case off calendar exists at this juncture due to a lack of an adequate record. Therefore, we must rescind the Order and return this matter to the calendar for a status conference for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Removal is warranted because the WCJ took the case off calendar without making a record or providing a basis for the decision, resulting in substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to applicant; the record was inadequate to support the order.

Official decision · page 4 →