California WCABLaw firm

Baziak & Steevens

Baziak & Steevens is named in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Tobin Lucks (2).

Decisions: 5
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 1

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

2 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

Anaheim 5

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 applicant
2 returned for more record

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ756255 · 2024-09-24 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.3While the WCA issued the Report on December 22, 2021, filing of the arbitration file in EAMS was not completed as required by WCAB Rule 10995, as the record does not include all exhibits proffered, including, but not limited to, the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision of November 11, 2021 of the WCA for which both parties seek reconsideration.
The record was incomplete, lacking necessary exhibits and an adequate description and organization of evidence, preventing meaningful review by the Board.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10898792 · 2026-06-16 · Anaheim District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.
The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision to allow the WCJ to review the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the case is pending on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12920589 · 2022-01-18 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on removal, a proposed settlement has been reached. Therefore, the Appeals Board will grant the Petition for Removal, rescind the decision from which removal is sought, and return this matter to the trial level for the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and either party may timely challenge the reinstated decision by appropriate petition.
The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal and rescinded the original WCJ decision, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8710457 · 2021-03-12 · Anaheim District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.12it is our decision after reconsideration to rescind the WCJ's decision that defendant is not barred from obtaining third-party credit pursuant to Civil Code section 3333.1 (F&O, Findings of Fact, Nos. 2-3, and Order). It is also our decision after reconsideration to amend the WCJ's decision to include his determination that "the description of the causes of action in the [civil] complaint and the facts set forth in Plaintiff's [applicant's] mediation brief, do establish facts that are sufficient to state a cause of action for professional negligence" pursuant to section 3333.1 and Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 75 [2016 Cal. LEXIS 2561] (Flores)
The WCAB found substantial evidence that the applicant's civil action settlement was demonstrably reduced by consideration of collateral source payments, barring defendant from third-party credit under Civil Code section 3333.1 and Graham.
Official decision · page 12 →

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 →

Baziak & Steevens

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ756255 · 2024-09-24 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.3While the WCA issued the Report on December 22, 2021, filing of the arbitration file in EAMS was not completed as required by WCAB Rule 10995, as the record does not include all exhibits proffered, including, but not limited to, the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision of November 11, 2021 of the WCA for which both parties seek reconsideration.

The record was incomplete, lacking necessary exhibits and an adequate description and organization of evidence, preventing meaningful review by the Board.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10898792 · 2026-06-16 · Anaheim District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision to allow the WCJ to review the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the case is pending on reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12920589 · 2022-01-18 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on removal, a proposed settlement has been reached. Therefore, the Appeals Board will grant the Petition for Removal, rescind the decision from which removal is sought, and return this matter to the trial level for the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and either party may timely challenge the reinstated decision by appropriate petition.

The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal and rescinded the original WCJ decision, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8710457 · 2021-03-12 · Anaheim District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.12it is our decision after reconsideration to rescind the WCJ's decision that defendant is not barred from obtaining third-party credit pursuant to Civil Code section 3333.1 (F&O, Findings of Fact, Nos. 2-3, and Order). It is also our decision after reconsideration to amend the WCJ's decision to include his determination that "the description of the causes of action in the [civil] complaint and the facts set forth in Plaintiff's [applicant's] mediation brief, do establish facts that are sufficient to state a cause of action for professional negligence" pursuant to section 3333.1 and Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 75 [2016 Cal. LEXIS 2561] (Flores)

The WCAB found substantial evidence that the applicant's civil action settlement was demonstrably reduced by consideration of collateral source payments, barring defendant from third-party credit under Civil Code section 3333.1 and Graham.

Official decision · page 12 →