California WCABLaw firm

Diefer Law Firm

Diefer Law Firm is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Jurisdiction / venue (1) and QME/AME process (1). They were heard most often at Riverside, then Pomona.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 3

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Riverside 4
Pomona 2
Marina del Rey 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.

5 for the defense
2 for the applicant

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ19984698 · 2026-04-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on January 12, 2026 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The F&O found, in pertinent part, that applicant validly requested a Replacement QME Panel on March 5, 2025 (to replace panel number 3593170). The WCJ ordered that replacement QME panel number 3622506 replace panel number 3593170, leaving, after the striking process previously performed by the parties, Kofi D. Agyeman, M.D., as the orthopedic surgery QME in these matters.
The WCJ and Appeals Board found that the applicant validly requested a replacement QME panel due to Dr. Willoughby's unavailability to schedule within 120 days, and that the replacement panel and Dr. Agyeman as QME were properly appointed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17424976 · 2024-10-21 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8In the current case, applicant filed the claim in California as that is where the claimed injury occurred. Further, as noted by the WCJ, defendant "offered to schedule the deposition at the time when applicant is traveling to California to be examined by the QME." As such, applicant would already be in California for a QME evaluation during the time of the deposition. Additionally, given the nature of psyche claims, the parties should understand that credibility and witness testimony are crucial to determining the outcome of the relevant issues in this case and as such, should recognize that in person testimony may be more significant to the discovery process. We therefore agree with the WCJ that applicant must appear in person in California for her deposition.
Applicant is a party who invoked California WCAB jurisdiction by filing a claim in California where injury occurred; defendant offered to pay all costs and schedule deposition with QME evaluation; in-person testimony is important for psyche claims; thus, in-person deposition in California is reasonable and required.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ12149152 · 2021-06-04 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Applicant was exposed to lasers in a hallway at his workplace. This was reported to the employer and medical attention was provided. Applicant has been treated and evaluated by specialists in the fields of neurology, ophthalmology, neuro-ophthalmology and optometry. He was a seen by a QME in the field of ophthalmology as well. The matter proceeded to trial only on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to his eyes. The question of injury to the psyche was deferred. All other issues were deferred. Applicant did not testify at trial. The record was contained within the documents submitted. These included medical notes or reports from several physicians and a deposition of the QME. After review of the entire record, it was found that the record did not contain substantial medical evidence to support applicant's claim of injury to the eyes as pled. It is that decision that is the basis for the present Petition.
The record lacked substantial medical evidence to support injury to the eyes; the QME Dr. Macy's report was found thorough and persuasive, concluding no evidence of injury to the eyes.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ13289648 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 485 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1273].) It is also well established that although a NIT may be provided alongside Minutes of Hearing, it is a separate and distinct document and should clearly indicate 1) that it is a NIT; 2) the parties involved; 3) the relevant dates and/or timelines; and 4) the basis for the NIT. Here, rather than issue a separate and proper NIT, the WCJ specified his intent to dismiss applicant's case and issue sanctions and costs within the May 3, 2021 Minutes of Hearing. As the NIT was not validly issued, the NIT, along with the resulting Order, are void ab initio. We note, however, that even if the NIT had been properly issued, the Order is fatally defective as it references WCAB Rule 10755 as authority for the dismissal, which applies mandatory settlement conferences, not trials. The WCJ also designated defendant for service in
The Order Dismissing Case was void because the Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT) was not validly issued as a separate document, referenced the wrong authority, and service was improperly delegated to defendant, violating due process and regulatory requirements.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10621729 · 2024-10-28 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on August 14, 2024, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
The petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and dismissed accordingly.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13494716 · 2024-09-30 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Accordingly, the Petition for Removal is now moot, and we will dismiss the Petition.
The Petition for Removal became moot after the parties resolved the case by Compromise & Release, so the Board dismissed the Petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15597591 · 2022-09-12 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION The WCJ may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (a).) A proper purpose includes, but is not limited to, (1) Allowing, disallowing or dismissing a lien; (2) Granting, denying or dismissing a petition; (3) Sanctioning a party; (4) Submitting the matter on the record; or (5) Dismissing an application. (Id.) "Either party may be present at any hearing, in person, by attorney, or by any other agent, and may present testimony pertinent under the pleadings." (Lab. Code, § 5700, italics added.) Each applicant and defendant shall appear or have an attorney or non-attorney representative appear at all hearings pertaining to the case in chief. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10752(a), italics added.) Appearance means a party or their representative's presence at any hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10305(c), italics added.) Therefore, the appearance of applicant's representative at the hearing satisfied the appearance requirement. As applicant met the requirement for appearing at the hearing by having his representative attend, the NIT was not issued for a proper purpose. Therefore, the NIT was invalid. Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition, rescind the June 22, 2022, Order, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The WCAB found that the applicant's representative's appearance at the hearing satisfied the appearance requirement, making the Notice of Intention to Issue Order Dismissing Case invalid and the Order of Dismissal improper.
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.

DIEFER LAW GROUP
DIEFER LAW GROUP, PC
Diefer Law Firm
DIEFER LAW FIRM
DIEFER 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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

2 for the applicant

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ19984698 · 2026-04-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on January 12, 2026 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The F&O found, in pertinent part, that applicant validly requested a Replacement QME Panel on March 5, 2025 (to replace panel number 3593170). The WCJ ordered that replacement QME panel number 3622506 replace panel number 3593170, leaving, after the striking process previously performed by the parties, Kofi D. Agyeman, M.D., as the orthopedic surgery QME in these matters.

The WCJ and Appeals Board found that the applicant validly requested a replacement QME panel due to Dr. Willoughby's unavailability to schedule within 120 days, and that the replacement panel and Dr. Agyeman as QME were properly appointed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17424976 · 2024-10-21 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8In the current case, applicant filed the claim in California as that is where the claimed injury occurred. Further, as noted by the WCJ, defendant "offered to schedule the deposition at the time when applicant is traveling to California to be examined by the QME." As such, applicant would already be in California for a QME evaluation during the time of the deposition. Additionally, given the nature of psyche claims, the parties should understand that credibility and witness testimony are crucial to determining the outcome of the relevant issues in this case and as such, should recognize that in person testimony may be more significant to the discovery process. We therefore agree with the WCJ that applicant must appear in person in California for her deposition.

Applicant is a party who invoked California WCAB jurisdiction by filing a claim in California where injury occurred; defendant offered to pay all costs and schedule deposition with QME evaluation; in-person testimony is important for psyche claims; thus, in-person deposition in California is reasonable and required.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ12149152 · 2021-06-04 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Applicant was exposed to lasers in a hallway at his workplace. This was reported to the employer and medical attention was provided. Applicant has been treated and evaluated by specialists in the fields of neurology, ophthalmology, neuro-ophthalmology and optometry. He was a seen by a QME in the field of ophthalmology as well. The matter proceeded to trial only on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to his eyes. The question of injury to the psyche was deferred. All other issues were deferred. Applicant did not testify at trial. The record was contained within the documents submitted. These included medical notes or reports from several physicians and a deposition of the QME. After review of the entire record, it was found that the record did not contain substantial medical evidence to support applicant's claim of injury to the eyes as pled. It is that decision that is the basis for the present Petition.

The record lacked substantial medical evidence to support injury to the eyes; the QME Dr. Macy's report was found thorough and persuasive, concluding no evidence of injury to the eyes.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ13289648 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 485 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1273].) It is also well established that although a NIT may be provided alongside Minutes of Hearing, it is a separate and distinct document and should clearly indicate 1) that it is a NIT; 2) the parties involved; 3) the relevant dates and/or timelines; and 4) the basis for the NIT. Here, rather than issue a separate and proper NIT, the WCJ specified his intent to dismiss applicant's case and issue sanctions and costs within the May 3, 2021 Minutes of Hearing. As the NIT was not validly issued, the NIT, along with the resulting Order, are void ab initio. We note, however, that even if the NIT had been properly issued, the Order is fatally defective as it references WCAB Rule 10755 as authority for the dismissal, which applies mandatory settlement conferences, not trials. The WCJ also designated defendant for service in

The Order Dismissing Case was void because the Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT) was not validly issued as a separate document, referenced the wrong authority, and service was improperly delegated to defendant, violating due process and regulatory requirements.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10621729 · 2024-10-28 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on August 14, 2024, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

The petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and dismissed accordingly.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13494716 · 2024-09-30 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Accordingly, the Petition for Removal is now moot, and we will dismiss the Petition.

The Petition for Removal became moot after the parties resolved the case by Compromise & Release, so the Board dismissed the Petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15597591 · 2022-09-12 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION The WCJ may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (a).) A proper purpose includes, but is not limited to, (1) Allowing, disallowing or dismissing a lien; (2) Granting, denying or dismissing a petition; (3) Sanctioning a party; (4) Submitting the matter on the record; or (5) Dismissing an application. (Id.) "Either party may be present at any hearing, in person, by attorney, or by any other agent, and may present testimony pertinent under the pleadings." (Lab. Code, § 5700, italics added.) Each applicant and defendant shall appear or have an attorney or non-attorney representative appear at all hearings pertaining to the case in chief. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10752(a), italics added.) Appearance means a party or their representative's presence at any hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10305(c), italics added.) Therefore, the appearance of applicant's representative at the hearing satisfied the appearance requirement. As applicant met the requirement for appearing at the hearing by having his representative attend, the NIT was not issued for a proper purpose. Therefore, the NIT was invalid. Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition, rescind the June 22, 2022, Order, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The WCAB found that the applicant's representative's appearance at the hearing satisfied the appearance requirement, making the Notice of Intention to Issue Order Dismissing Case invalid and the Order of Dismissal improper.

Official decision · page 2 →