California WCABLaw firm
Chou Law Group
Chou Law Group is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (4), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (3) and AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Solov & Teitell (2).
- Decisions
- 9
- Years
- 2022–2025
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 8
Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 of 9 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.
2 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 9 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.
- ADJ14547470 · 2025-04-17 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The matter thereafter stood submitted, and on January 13, 2021, the WCA issued his Opinion and Order finding that applicant was not entitled to an examination with a QME specializing in either the field of orthopedic or occupational medicine.
The Appeals Board found that the WCA erred in denying the applicant a QME examination based on the ADR rules, as the rules do not abrogate the WCA's authority to appoint a medical examiner and due process requires a meaningful consideration of the merits.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ10450766 · 2024-12-31 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3On October 4, 2024, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, in which the WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant was employed by defendant, that the injuries to her lumbar spine and coccyx were AOE/COE, and that "[r]e-evaluations with the PQME in psychiatry, Dr. Howard Greils and the PQME in urology, Dr. Ernest Agatstein, are not warranted." (10/4/24 Findings of Fact, at pp. 1-2.)
The WCJ found re-evaluations not warranted; the defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal; reconsideration was adequate remedy; thus petition dismissed and removal denied.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ11076763 · 2024-09-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred
Determinative passage · p.9(1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories or examinations, on incorrect legal theories, or on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93] (italics added); Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].) Following development of the record, the parties may wish to specifically frame and submit the issue of the substantiality of the reporting, including the reporting in the field of rheumatology.
The Appeals Board deferred the issue of fibromyalgia rating and compensability for further development of the record, noting the need to assess substantiality of medical evidence.
Official decision · page 9 → - ADJ18538112 · 2024-05-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3On February 20, 2024, the WCJ issued the F&O, determining in relevant part that the January 10, 2024 Utilization Review determination was timely. The Opinion on Decision explained that notwithstanding the checked box on the RFA indicating the need for expedited review, the RFA and supporting documentation failed to establish that applicant faced an imminent or serious threat to her health or safety, or that a decision issued in the normal UR timeframe would be detrimental to the applicant's condition. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 2.) Accordingly, the WCJ determined that the need for expedited review timeframes was not substantiated in the record, and that the defendant had timely issued the utilization review decision within five business days of receipt of the RFA, as required by Labor Code section 4610(i)(3).
The WCJ found that the Request for Authorization did not substantiate the need for expedited review as required by AD Rule 9792.9.1(c)(4), and the defendant issued the Utilization Review determination within the five business days required by AD Rule 9792.9.1(c)(3). The WCAB panel agreed and denied reconsideration.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ10175606 · 2022-08-16 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant L. Brand, Inc./Victoria Secret (Defendant) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Orders of February 4, 2022, wherein it was found that, while employed as a retail manager during a cumulative period ending July 15, 2013, applicant sustained industrial injury to feet, right ankle, low back, right hip and right knee causing permanent total (100%) disability and the need for further medical treatment.
The WCAB found that the apportionment opinion of Dr. Wolfson was not substantial medical evidence because it lacked explanation of how pre-existing pathology contributed to permanent impairment, thus the applicant was entitled to an unapportioned award. The WCAB affirmed the finding of permanent total disability based on vocational evidence and applicant's credible testimony of unsuccessful return to work attempts.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ18538112 · 2024-08-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 et seq.
The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow further review of the merits and the entire record, deferring final decision.
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.
- CHOU LAW GROUP
- Chou Law Group
- CHOU LAW GROUP, LLP
- Chou Law
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.