Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin

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 15
• Oxnard 9
• Los Angeles 7
• Santa Ana 7
• Anaheim 6
• Marina del Rey 5
• Riverside 5
• Long Beach 4
• Oakland 4
• Pomona 3
• San Bernardino 3
• San Diego 2

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.

• 32 for the applicant
• 29 for the defense
• 12 returned for more record

Counted over 69 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ8015380 · 2026-06-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.18For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the July 2, 2019 Findings and Order is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board deferred the rollback issue pending resolution of the section 3600.5(b) application at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ14589712 · 2026-06-12 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Based upon our review of Dr. Stoller's reports, including the medical legal report dated December 12, 2024, Dr. Stoller reviewed medical records, took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. As such, we find that Dr. Stoller's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine. As explained by Dr. Stoller, applicant sustained a 6% WPI to the lumbar spine under DRE category II due to loss of range of motion and pain as well as the injury's effects on applicant's activities and daily living (ADLs) including issues with standing and sitting. (Joint Exhibit 104 p. 27.) Applicant noted that he can tolerate sitting for sixty (60) minutes, standing and walking for two (2) hours, and lifting up to thirty (30) pounds. (Id. at p. 2.) Applicant also noted significant pain when walking up and down stairs and driving more than two hours. (Ibid.) We note that in his report dated August 1, 2025, Dr. Stoller confirmed that causation was due to the cumulative injury ending on October 25, 2018. (Joint Exhibit 105.)

  Dr. Stoller's reports were found to constitute substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine, including detailed examination, history, and explanation of causation.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ4661348 · 2026-02-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7While we understand that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, the issue here is not lien claimant's lien, which was either dismissed by operation of law or adjudicated by WCJ Walker's January 16, 2020 Findings of Fact. The issues here are sanctions and costs, which were bifurcated, with jurisdiction reserved, on November 26, 2023. (MOHSOE dated November 23, 2023, Stipulation no. 24, p. 4:6-7.) As we said before, although ordinarily, a dismissal of a lien ends all proceedings with lien claimant, given the unique and extensive procedural history of litigation for almost two decades, as well as lien claimant's actions in repeatedly submitting himself to workers' compensation proceedings, we remain steadfast in our conclusion that the WCAB maintains jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues of penalties, sanctions, and costs after lien claimant began proceedings on May 23, 2023 even though the issue of his lien and the issue of

  The WCAB maintains jurisdiction over the issues of penalties, sanctions, and costs after the lien claimant began proceedings on May 23, 2023, despite the lien being dismissed or adjudicated previously, due to the unique procedural history and continuous litigation.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ19392643 · 2026-01-30 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Finding of Fact issued on October 23, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found that applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his low back, neck, left shoulder, left hand, and left wrist with additional parts of body deferred and jurisdiction reserved with the WCAB; the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is August 15, 2019; and compensation for applicant's injury is not barred by section 3600(a)(10).

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in limiting the date of injury to August 15, 2019, and in the application of the post-termination bar under section 3600(a)(10), warranting reconsideration and further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7656948 · 2026-01-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant First Choice Doctors Medical Group, Inc., seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on June 23, 2021 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the F&O, as relevant here, the WCJ found that lien claimant First Choice Doctors Medical Group, Inc., doing business as (dba) Surgery Center of the Canyon, failed to file a lien activation fee as required by Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). The lien was therefore ordered dismissed with prejudice.

  The WCJ dismissed the lien for failure to pay the lien activation fee, but the Appeals Board found the dismissal was made without a proper evidentiary record and due process, and thus rescinded the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10222709 · 2026-01-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2FACTUAL BACKGROUND On November 24, 2020, the matter proceeded to trial in ADJ10222709. In that case, applicant claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE while employed by UCLA as a hospital lab technician, during the period May 1, 2014 through November 11, 2015, to her bilateral upper extremities, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral arms, neck, digestive system (stomach), fingers, both shoulders, elbows, internal, dental, nervous system, pulmonary and vision. The issues raised for determination were stated as follows: 1. Injury arising out of and in the course of employment. 2. Applicant attorney's motion to strike PQME Klassen is vigorously opposed by both defendants, including possible deposition unavailability. 3. Applicant's request for an additional panel in internal medicine is opposed by defendants. 4. Applicant's attorney objects to trial at this time and seeks further discovery.

  The WCJ failed to make findings on injury AOE/COE and improperly based denial solely on applicant's lack of credibility; the Appeals Board requires medical evidence for injury determination and remands for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ17937030 · 2025-11-04 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5A decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Where the issue in dispute is a medical one, expert medical evidence is ordinarily needed to resolve the issue. (Insurance Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 912 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913]; Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].)

  The PQME's expert medical opinion was found to be substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's findings, and defendant failed to provide rebuttal medical evidence or properly investigate before trial.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10963100 · 2025-10-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal in response to the July 8, 2025 Joint Findings and Order issued by a workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found, in pertinent part, that (1) applicant, while employed by defendant on June 17, 2017, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his right ankle in case number ADJ10955805; (2) applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his bilateral wrists and knees in ADJ1096310 [date of injury not identified]; (3) applicant properly obtained a qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in pain management; (4) the reporting of Guodong Li, M.D., is admissible as the PQME in pain management; and (5) Dr. Li shall be allowed to finalize the evaluation of the applicant. The WCJ ordered that Dr. Li be allowed complete his evaluation of applicant, with all medical records to be forwarded to him in the next 15 days, and that his original reports shall remain in evidence. All other issues, including sanctions and costs were ordered off calendar, with the parties to meet and confer as to same within the next 15 days.

  The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his right ankle on June 17, 2017, which was affirmed by the Appeals Board.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9060523 · 2025-09-22 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12The orthopedic QME, Dr. Donald Kim in his report dated 10/04/2022, declared the applicant MMI on 08/25/2022, the date of her last evaluation. (Exhibit #8, page 11) Dr. Kim provided this date after he reviewed records and evaluated the applicant numerous times. Dr. Kim's report was more substantial medical evidence than PTP, Dr. Brent Prately's report dated 01/29/2014. (Exhibit #A) Dr. Kim reviewed several reports, including the rheumatology and psychology reports. Dr. Prately did not appear to review any report after 01/29/2014, the date of his last report. Dr. Pratley did not address the applicant's increased symptoms as documented in QME, Dr. Kim's reports, dated 05/29/2018 and dated 08/29/2022. (Exhibits J4, page 1-2 and #J6, page 1-2). Her orthopedic injuries were complicated by her fibromyalgia. Dr. Kim's report was found to be substantial medical evidence and more persuasive on the issue of MMI status.

  WCJ relied on QME Dr. Kim's reports, which reviewed entire medical record and found applicant temporarily disabled through 08/25/2022; Dr. Kim's opinion more substantial than PTP Dr. Pratley's earlier report.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ6620180 · 2025-05-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings of Fact and Order/Award (F&O) issued on January 27, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed as a police officer by defendant during the period January 1, 2004 through February 2, 2008, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his psyche; (2) an award was issued based on the parties' Stipulations with Request for Award dated April 3, 2012 for 17% permanent disability; (3) applicant was employed from March 1997 until his termination on July 14, 2009, based on a three day Board of Rights hearing; (4) applicant established a prima facie claim of Labor Code section 132a1 discrimination; (5) defendant did not have a legitimate business reason for the discrimination; and (6) defendant discriminated against applicant for having a work-related injury pursuant to section 132a.

  Applicant established a prima facie claim of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a based on credible testimony and evidence that defendant knew of the work-related injury and discriminated against applicant by terminating him without a legitimate business reason.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7580462 · 2025-03-11 · Oxnard District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, it is undisputed that lien claimant did not file the declaration required by section 4903.05, and thus, its lien was dismissed by operation of law by July 3, 2017. Therefore, lien claimant could not further pursue the lien; the WCAB did not have jurisdiction over lien claimant once the time to challenge the dismissal had elapsed; and trial should not have been set.

  Lien claimant did not file the required declaration under Labor Code section 4903.05, resulting in dismissal of the lien by operation of law; defendant's petition for sanctions is moot as the lien was dismissed and WCAB lacked jurisdiction to proceed.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12630887 · 2025-02-03 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Given applicant's claim amendment, defendant's denial of liability and refusal to authorize the treating physician's request for referral for medical treatment, and applicant's subsequent attempts to engage in the medical-legal dispute resolution process required by section 4062.2 in the manner authorized under AD Rule 31.7, we are persuaded that applicant established good cause for the issuance of additional panels of QMEs in internal medicine and psychology. We therefore disagree with the WCJ's determination that applicant failed to exercise reasonable diligence in attempting to meet her burden of proof.

  Applicant amended claim to include these body parts and sought additional QMEs; the Board found applicant exercised reasonable diligence and that the record lacked substantial evidence, warranting further development.

  Official decision · page 9 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 20.

• FLOYD SKEREN MANUKIAN LANGEVIN, LLP
• FLOYD SKEREN MANUKIAN LANGEVIN
• FLOYD, SKEREN, MANUKIAN & LANGEVIN
• FLOYD, SKEREN, MANUKIAN, LANGEVIN
• Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin
• Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, LLP
• Floyd, Skeren, Manukian, Langevin
• FLOYD SKEREN
• FLOYD SKEREN MANUKIAN & LANGEVIN
• FLOYD, SKEREN, MANUKIAN & LANGEVIN, LLP
• Floyd, Skeren, Manukian & Langevin, LLP
• Floyd, Skeren, Manukian & Lingevi[n]

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.