Black and Rose

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 6
• Marina del Rey 5
• Oakland 2
• Redding 2
• Santa Rosa 2
• Anaheim 1
• Long Beach 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Pomona 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Francisco 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.

• 12 for the applicant
• 8 for the defense
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 24 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.

• ADJ16034617 · 2025-08-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2On November 12, 2024, defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. On January 21, 2025, we denied defendant's petition. (Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration, dated January 21, 2025.) On April 28, 2025, the parties proceeded to trial and framed for decision the issue of "[j]urisdiction of WCJ to determine need for medical care as requested by Dr. Elliott Block as set

  The WCJ properly exercised authority under Labor Code section 4604 to order compliance with a valid UR determination, and the UR determination was final and binding under section 4610.5(f)(1).

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ14784661 · 2025-08-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4evaluate his claimed injury. Orthopedic QME Andrew Rah, M.D. has documented applicant's complaints of depression and anxiety in reporting dated August 30, 2021 and March 7, 2022. (Ex. X2, Report of Andrew Rah, M.D., dated August 30, 2021, at p. 7; Ex. X2, Report of Andrew Rah, M.D., dated March 7, 2022, at p. 7.) Applicant's August 9, 2024 Declaration of Readiness to Proceed indicated the disputed issues included a request for a panel of QMEs in psychiatry. (Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, dated August 9, 2024, at p. 7.) The parties proceeded to trial on February 27, 2025, and the corresponding minutes reflect applicant's claimed body parts as included psyche. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (Minutes), dated February 27, 2025, at p. 2:8.) Applicant testified to continued emotional difficulties related to his injury, including difficulties with focus and concentration, vertigo, and anxiety. (Id. at p. 5:12.)

  The WCAB found good cause for issuance of additional QME panels in both neurology and psychiatry based on the record, including applicant's testimony, prior QME reports documenting psychiatric complaints, and procedural history.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ17864269 · 2025-04-28 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4In the instant case, we agree with the WCJ that the medical evidence as well as applicant's uncontradicted testimony at trial supports a finding that the applicant sustained an aggravation and not an exacerbation of his pre-existing condition. The May 18, 2023 incident required treatment beyond first aid, and applicant's unrebutted testimony at trial was that he was unable to return to work after his May 18, 2023, as the employer advised he could not do so unless he could perform his job. Further, the parties stipulated at trial that "the employer has furnished some medical treatment." (MOH/SOE, 1/14/25, 2:15.)

  The evidence and applicant's uncontradicted testimony support that the applicant sustained an aggravation, not an exacerbation, of his pre-existing condition, requiring medical treatment and causing temporary disability, meeting the definition of a compensable specific industrial injury under Labor Code section 3208.1.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16034617 · 2025-01-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3An applicant's right to recover workers' compensation benefits is subject to the conditions set forth in section 3600. Among these is that "the injury is not caused by the intoxication, by alcohol or the unlawful use of a controlled substance, of the injured employee." (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(4).) Intoxication is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof rests on the employer, as the defendant, to establish that affirmative defense. (Lab. Code, § 5705(b).) To carry its burden of proof, a defendant is required to prove each fact supporting its claim by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.) As explained in section 3202.5:

  Defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant was intoxicated at the time of injury or that intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury, based on lack of toxicology evidence, eyewitness testimony, and medical opinion linking intoxication to injury.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11584131 · 2024-06-28 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Preliminarily, we note that defendant does not challenge the WCJ's finding that the utilization review (UR) denial letter dated October 2, 2023 of the September 19, 2023 Request for Authorization (RFA) was untimely. In Dubon v. World Restoration, Inc. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298, 1299 (Appeals Board en banc) (Dubon II), the Appeals Board held that if a UR decision is untimely, the UR decision is invalid and not subject to independent medical review (IMR). If a UR decision is untimely, the determination of medical necessity for the treatment requested may be made by the Appeals Board based on substantial evidence. (Id. at pp. 1300; 1312.) In this case, the WCJ correctly determined that the September 19, 2023 Request for Authorization is reasonable and necessary.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found the opinions of Dr. Bradley Thomas and Dr. Peter Gleiberman to be substantial medical evidence supporting the reasonableness and necessity of the lumbar surgery, while rejecting the untimely UR denial and IMR denial as not substantial evidence. Applicant's credible testimony and consistent medical records supported the surgery request.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11318036 · 2023-12-18 · Oakland District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3found the "medical opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) Dr. Mohan Nair, is not

  The QME changed his opinion without proper reasoning, undermining the reliability of his medical-legal opinions, leading the WCJ and WCAB to find the report not substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14932580 · 2022-08-19 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3(2) The complexity of the issues involved; (3) The potential prejudice to any party, including but not limited to whether granting consolidation would significantly delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (4) The avoidance of duplicate or inconsistent orders; and (5) The efficient utilization of judicial resources. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10396(a).) Given the authority cited above, the WCJ should have referred this issue to the presiding judge. Moreover, we note that no record has been created to enable the presiding judge to render a decision. Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that reconsideration of the June 16, 2022 Order denying defendant's Petition for Consolidation is GRANTED.

  The WCJ should have referred the consolidation issue to the presiding judge and no record was created for the presiding judge to render a decision; thus, the order was rescinded and the matter returned for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9689895 · 2022-06-06 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the February 3, 2020 Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed during the period from March 31, 1992 to July 28, 2014 as a structural aircraft mechanic, sustained admitted industrial injury to both shoulders, both knees, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and internal injury in the form of heart disease and hypertension. The WCJ further found 85% industrial apportionment with regard to the permanent disability attributable to the cervical and lumbar spines, left knee and right knee; 100% industrial apportionment with regard to left shoulder, right shoulder and right wrist; and 50% industrial apportionment with regard to hypertension and coronary artery disease. The WCJ also found that the injury herein caused 100% permanent disability.

  The WCJ found valid non-industrial apportionment but still found the applicant permanently and totally disabled based on the credible and unrebutted vocational expert opinion and applicant's testimony, which showed the applicant's total loss of earning capacity due to industrial injury.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10390527 · 2022-03-22 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ issued the F&O on January 7, 2022, finding in pertinent part that "the statutes of limitations" were tolled until the applicant was advised of the statutory deadlines for filing a claim under Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726, 729 [39 Cal. Comp. Cases 768]. The opinion further determined that no claim form was ever provided to applicant by his employer. Accordingly, the WCJ determined that none of the three continuous trauma applications were barred by "any statute of limitations." (F&O, Joint Finding of Fact No. 1.)

  The WCJ's original decision did not clearly identify the specific statutes at issue or the date of injury under section 5412, which is necessary to determine if the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify these issues.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9761024 · 2021-04-08 · Marina del Rey District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Delmar Medical Imaging (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order Regarding Lien of Delmar Medical Imaging (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 20, 2018. As relevant herein, the WCJ found that lien claimant's lien was invalid when filed on October 21, 2016; that the "amended" lien filed on August 21, 2017, was untimely; that lien claimant was required to file its lien no later than 18 months after the last day of service; that lien claimant's lien was barred by the statute of limitations; and that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473 were not met. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered lien claimant's lien dismissed, and that it take nothing on its lien.

  The WCJ found the lien claimant's declaration noncompliant and untimely, barred by the statute of limitations, and the WCJ's credibility determination of the lien claimant's representative's testimony was given great weight by the WCAB, leading to affirming dismissal of the lien.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9506148 · 2021-04-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813remanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Accordingly, we rescind the Supplemental F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The WCJ's Supplemental Findings of Fact and Order awarding attorney's fees to defendants was rescinded due to insufficient record and lack of findings supporting the order, requiring further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14497155 · 2025-10-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2WCAB Rule 10961 then states: After 15 days have elapsed from the filing of a petition for reconsideration, a workers' compensation judge shall not issue any order in the case until the Appeals Board has denied or dismissed the petition for reconsideration or issued a decision after reconsideration. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) Here, the WCJ chose to prepare a Report pursuant to subdivision (a) and transmit ADJ14497155 to the Appeals Board. Nonetheless, in contravention of the mandatory requirement in WCAB Rule 10961, the WCJ issued an order approving a compromise and release on February 3, 2023, while the matter was still pending at the Appeals Board. No notice was ever given to the Appeals Board that there was a settlement pending. In particular, applicant's attorneys Vyshnavi Chandrasekaran (CSB #: 256050) and Michael Burgis & Associates, P.C., did not notify the Appeals Board that the Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn. This lack of action by the parties and the WCJ causes delay and wastes the resources of the Appeals Board.

  The Petition for Reconsideration became moot because the WCJ issued an order approving compromise and release while the matter was pending at the Appeals Board, which was contrary to the mandatory requirement in WCAB Rule 10961.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.

• BLACK & ROSE
• BLACK AND ROSE
• Black and Rose
• LAW OFFICES OF BLACK AND ROSE
• BLACK ROSE
• Black Rose Law Firm
• BLACK AND ROSE, LLP
• BLACK AND ROSE. LLP
• BLACK AND ROSE LLP
• Black & Rose, LLP
• BLACK & ROSE LLP

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.