California WCABLaw firm
Cipolla, Bhatti, Hoyal & Roach
Cipolla, Bhatti, Hoyal & Roach is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Jurisdiction / venue (2) and Substantial evidence / credibility (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Appel Law Firm (1).
- Decisions
- 13
- Years
- 2023–2025
- Issues disputed
- 5
- District offices
- 9
Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 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.
- Appel Law Firm1
- Equitable Law Firm1
- Law Offices of Jesse Marino, APC1
- Rose, Klein & Marias1
- Rowen, Gurvey & Win1
- The Dominguez Firm1
- Work Injury Law Group, LLP1
3 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 12 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.
- ADJ7763838 · 2025-05-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In the instant matter, defendant Zenith is taking the position that the December 15, 2009 report of Dr. Nelson (Exhibit X1) sufficiently put CIGA on notice of the existence of a cumulative trauma claim so as to establish that same date as the § 5412 date of injury. Zenith argues that CIGA is a sophisticated party, and that therefore, the language in Dr. Nelson's report was sufficient to place it on notice of the potential existence of applicant's cumulative trauma injury.
The court found that the December 15, 2009 report of Dr. Nelson did not provide sufficient knowledge to fix the date of injury for cumulative trauma. The first report that clearly defined the cumulative trauma injury was the November 17, 2010 report, establishing the §5412 date of injury. The application filed on April 27, 2011 was timely under the statute of limitations.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ14362966 · 2025-02-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the November 12, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an Energy Technician from November 1, 2020 to November 29, 2020, sustained industrial injury in the form of COVID-19.
The WCAB found that the WCJ's original decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the QME's medical opinion was limited to a single service call and did not address the totality of the evidence; the record was incomplete and required further development to determine industrial causation of COVID-19.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10404221 · 2024-12-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11period June 30, 1994 to October 9, 2019, as a general manager, occupational group number: 212, at Burbank, California, by Camile's, Inc., claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, cardiovascular system (in the form of hypertension) and psychiatric system. 2. The issue of what period(s) applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury is deferred. 3. The issue of the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is deferred. 4. The issue of the period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5 is deferred. 5. All other issues are deferred.
The WCJ failed to make findings on the period(s) of cumulative trauma injury, date of injury under Labor Code section 5412, and period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5, requiring further development and deferral of these issues.
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ16367120 · 2024-10-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3(Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) A WCJ's credibility determinations may be disturbed, but only where there is contrary evidence of considerable substantiality. (Id.) There was no such evidence here. Defendant argues applicant did not have specific knowledge of the work environment, but applicant's testimony was consistent with what was reported to Dr. Edwin Haronian and defense witnesses appeared to confirm this. (Opinion on Decision (OOD), July 12, 2024, p. 1.) As to questions regarding hiring and employment practices, however, defense witnesses appeared inconsistent and suspicious. (Id. at p. 2.) Since defendant provided no contrary evidence of considerable substantiality, we find no reason to disturb the WCJ's credibility findings.
The WCJ's credibility determinations were entitled to great weight and supported by substantial evidence, including consistent applicant testimony corroborated by witnesses and inconsistent defense witness testimony.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ10356268 · 2024-07-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.2While reconsideration was granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case, the filing of the arbitration file in EAMS has still never been completed as required by WCAB Rule 10995.
The Appeals Board found that due process requires a complete and organized record for meaningful review and that the incomplete record prevented meaningful review, necessitating rescission and remand.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ11228281 · 2024-04-16 · Fresno District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Cost Petitioner avers the WCJ's May 22, 2023 Order is a due process violation because it does not state a basis for the decision, and thus denies Cost Petitioner the "ability to intelligently appeal, and present argument or evidence to the contrary." (Petition, at p. 3:11.)
The WCJ's May 22, 2023 order denying the Petition to Compel Non-Medical Discovery did not state a basis for the denial, depriving the petitioner of due process and a meaningful right of appeal, warranting removal and rescission of the order.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ15449362 · 2023-05-26 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we agree that applicant was the initial aggressor in the altercation that led to his injury. Moreover, as discussed in the Report the WCJ's credibility determinations are entitled to great weight. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)
The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight, and the evidence including video surveillance supported that the applicant was the initial physical aggressor in the altercation leading to injury.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ10871012 · 2025-10-20 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon various allegations that the WCJ is generally biased.
The WCJ's Report and the record review showed no grounds for disqualification based on bias or prejudice, and the petition was denied.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ11166012 · 2024-08-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on January 25, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, leading to its dismissal.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ16446234 · 2023-11-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on March 8, 2023, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ16394013 · 2023-02-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on January 11, 2023 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
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.
- CIPOLLA, BHATTI, HOYAL & ROACH
- Cipolla, Bhatti, Hoyal & Roach
- LAW OFFICES OF CIPOLLA, BHATTI, HOYAL & ROACH
- CIPOLLA, CALABA, WOLLMAN & BHATTI, ALC
- CIPOLLA BHATTI HOYAL & ROACH
- CIPOLLA & BHATTI
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.