California WCABLaw firm

CW Law

CW Law is named in 14 released California WCAB decisions from 2024–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Tina Odjaghian Law Group (3).

Decisions: 14
Years: 2024–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 7

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 12 of 13 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

6 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 6
Anaheim 2
Marina del Rey 2
Long Beach 1
Riverside 1
San Bernardino 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.

7 for the defense
6 for the applicant

Counted over 13 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.

ADJ16439951 · 2026-05-29 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits, the WCJ found industrial injury based on the reporting and testimony of primary treating physician Marc Nehorayan, M.D., who opined that applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment. We note that since applicant's injury resulted from being a victim of or direct exposure to a violent act a finding that defendant does not challenge it need only be proved the actual events of employment were a substantial cause of the injury. (Cal. Labor Code, § 3208.3, subd. (b)(2).)
The WCAB affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the psyche based on substantial medical evidence, including Dr. Nehorayan's opinion that the injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment, and rejected defendant's argument about DSM edition used for diagnosis.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ16913929 · 2025-10-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant both seek reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 27, 2025, wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a server, waitress, manager, and kitchen worker during the period of January 1, 1986 to June 19, 2020, sustained injury arising out of and during the course of employment to her thoracic spine, lumbar spine, shoulders, elbows, wrists, knees, ankles, and feet, causing permanent disability of 95 percent. The decision also found that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because the date of injury of the cumulative injury is June 7, 2023, based on Labor Code section 54121 (Finding of Fact #11), and because this date is after the date of applicant's termination, her claim is not barred by the post- termination defense (Finding of Fact #12). The F&A further found that the reports of Gabriel Rubanenko, M.D., constitute substantial medical evidence on the issues of injury, temporary disability, date of maximal medical improvement, permanent disability based on whole person
The claim was found not barred by the statute of limitations because the date of injury was June 7, 2023, within the statutory period.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17686288 · 2025-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3II. With respect to the assertion by petitioner that the WCJ's Award "far exceeds" the treatment recommendations of the request for authorization (RFA) from applicant's primary treating physician, Vibhay Prasad, M.D. (Petition, p. 8.), the WCJ's Award provides for "further and ongoing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills." Such Award is supported by the Findings of Fact, numbered paragraph 4, which states, "Applicant requires further and continuing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills," which is in turn justified by the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 (Significant Panel Decision). Further, in addition to the reasons set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe that petitioner's reliance on the case of Allied Signal Aero. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wiggs) (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1077 [84 Cal.Comp.Cases 367] in support of the assertion that the Appeals Board has no jurisdiction to review the medical necessity and reasonableness of home health care is misplaced. Wiggs does not negate the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v.
The WCAB panel found that the WCJ had jurisdiction to order continuing treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills despite a timely utilization review denial, relying on the Patterson line of cases and rejecting the defendant's jurisdiction argument based on the timely RFA denial. The panel also found insufficient substantial medical evidence to discontinue treatment, crediting the treating physician Dr. Prasad's recommendations over the utilization review physician Dr. Gart's denial.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12007058 · 2024-02-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3INTRODUCTION: On December 21, 2023, the Defendant, by and through its attorney of record, CW Law, LLP, filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated December 21, 2023, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Partial Findings of Fact, Award & Order dated December 6, 2023. The Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in construing in his decision-making the parties'[] deferring to Yuri Falkinstein, M.D., the agreed medical evaluator in orthopedics, the Applicant's further need for home healthcare in the minutes of hearing by WCJ Clint Feddersen dated November 1, 2021.
The parties had a binding stipulation to submit the homecare issue to the agreed medical evaluator, Dr. Falkinstein, whose report supported the need for homecare services, and the defendant's attempt to narrow the scope of the agreement was rejected as unreasonable.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12727724 · 2026-01-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2On January 15, 2026, applicant filed a petition seeking to withdraw her pending Petition for Reconsideration.
Applicant withdrew the Petition for Reconsideration, leading to dismissal and vacatur of the prior order granting reconsideration.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ18590024 · 2026-01-21 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on October 30, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).2
The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19674146 · 2026-01-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on October 8, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis and the Appeals Board's review.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ20203816 · 2025-10-07 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on June 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
Petition for removal was withdrawn after parties entered into a Compromise and Release, so the petition was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18067229 · 2025-07-10 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the additional reasons given below, we will deny reconsideration.
The WCAB panel found that the defendant did not meet the burden of proof to show a change in applicant's medical condition or circumstances to justify discontinuing ongoing home health care, and thus denied the petition for reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10300144 · 2025-04-28 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1With respect to the issue of whether applicant's Declaration is a petition for disqualification, as discussed in the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, it is not timely filed as one for disqualification and does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960
The petition was dismissed as untimely and lacking sufficient facts to establish disqualification under the cited legal standards.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18291313 · 2025-02-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal filed on August 21, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17876630 · 2024-09-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.
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.

CW LAW
CW Law
CW LAW LLP
CW Law, 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.

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 →

CW Law

Decisions

Years

2024–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

7 for the defense

6 for the applicant

Counted over 13 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.

ADJ16439951 · 2026-05-29 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits, the WCJ found industrial injury based on the reporting and testimony of primary treating physician Marc Nehorayan, M.D., who opined that applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment. We note that since applicant's injury resulted from being a victim of or direct exposure to a violent act a finding that defendant does not challenge it need only be proved the actual events of employment were a substantial cause of the injury. (Cal. Labor Code, § 3208.3, subd. (b)(2).)

The WCAB affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the psyche based on substantial medical evidence, including Dr. Nehorayan's opinion that the injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment, and rejected defendant's argument about DSM edition used for diagnosis.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ16913929 · 2025-10-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant both seek reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 27, 2025, wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a server, waitress, manager, and kitchen worker during the period of January 1, 1986 to June 19, 2020, sustained injury arising out of and during the course of employment to her thoracic spine, lumbar spine, shoulders, elbows, wrists, knees, ankles, and feet, causing permanent disability of 95 percent. The decision also found that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because the date of injury of the cumulative injury is June 7, 2023, based on Labor Code section 54121 (Finding of Fact #11), and because this date is after the date of applicant's termination, her claim is not barred by the post- termination defense (Finding of Fact #12). The F&A further found that the reports of Gabriel Rubanenko, M.D., constitute substantial medical evidence on the issues of injury, temporary disability, date of maximal medical improvement, permanent disability based on whole person

The claim was found not barred by the statute of limitations because the date of injury was June 7, 2023, within the statutory period.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17686288 · 2025-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3II. With respect to the assertion by petitioner that the WCJ's Award "far exceeds" the treatment recommendations of the request for authorization (RFA) from applicant's primary treating physician, Vibhay Prasad, M.D. (Petition, p. 8.), the WCJ's Award provides for "further and ongoing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills." Such Award is supported by the Findings of Fact, numbered paragraph 4, which states, "Applicant requires further and continuing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills," which is in turn justified by the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 (Significant Panel Decision). Further, in addition to the reasons set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe that petitioner's reliance on the case of Allied Signal Aero. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wiggs) (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1077 [84 Cal.Comp.Cases 367] in support of the assertion that the Appeals Board has no jurisdiction to review the medical necessity and reasonableness of home health care is misplaced. Wiggs does not negate the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v.

The WCAB panel found that the WCJ had jurisdiction to order continuing treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills despite a timely utilization review denial, relying on the Patterson line of cases and rejecting the defendant's jurisdiction argument based on the timely RFA denial. The panel also found insufficient substantial medical evidence to discontinue treatment, crediting the treating physician Dr. Prasad's recommendations over the utilization review physician Dr. Gart's denial.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12007058 · 2024-02-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3INTRODUCTION: On December 21, 2023, the Defendant, by and through its attorney of record, CW Law, LLP, filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated December 21, 2023, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Partial Findings of Fact, Award & Order dated December 6, 2023. The Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in construing in his decision-making the parties'[] deferring to Yuri Falkinstein, M.D., the agreed medical evaluator in orthopedics, the Applicant's further need for home healthcare in the minutes of hearing by WCJ Clint Feddersen dated November 1, 2021.

The parties had a binding stipulation to submit the homecare issue to the agreed medical evaluator, Dr. Falkinstein, whose report supported the need for homecare services, and the defendant's attempt to narrow the scope of the agreement was rejected as unreasonable.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12727724 · 2026-01-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2On January 15, 2026, applicant filed a petition seeking to withdraw her pending Petition for Reconsideration.

Applicant withdrew the Petition for Reconsideration, leading to dismissal and vacatur of the prior order granting reconsideration.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ18590024 · 2026-01-21 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on October 30, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).2

The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19674146 · 2026-01-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on October 8, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis and the Appeals Board's review.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ20203816 · 2025-10-07 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on June 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

Petition for removal was withdrawn after parties entered into a Compromise and Release, so the petition was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18067229 · 2025-07-10 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the additional reasons given below, we will deny reconsideration.

The WCAB panel found that the defendant did not meet the burden of proof to show a change in applicant's medical condition or circumstances to justify discontinuing ongoing home health care, and thus denied the petition for reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10300144 · 2025-04-28 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1With respect to the issue of whether applicant's Declaration is a petition for disqualification, as discussed in the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, it is not timely filed as one for disqualification and does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960

The petition was dismissed as untimely and lacking sufficient facts to establish disqualification under the cited legal standards.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18291313 · 2025-02-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal filed on August 21, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17876630 · 2024-09-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.

Official decision · page 1 →