Garrett Law Group

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 37
• Anaheim 1
• Bakersfield 1
• Long Beach 1
• Riverside 1
• San Bernardino 1
• Van Nuys 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.

• 39 for the defense
• 10 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 47 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.

• ADJ12414993 · 2026-02-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The Appeals Board has exclusive jurisdiction over fees to be allowed or paid to applicants' attorneys. (Vierra v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Vierra) (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423, 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1128]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10840.) In calculating attorney fees, our basic statutory command is that the fees awarded must be "reasonable." (Lab. Code, § 4903, 4906(a), (d).) Pursuant to section 4906, in determining what constitutes a "reasonable" attorney fee, the Appeals Board must consider four factors: 1) the responsibility assumed by the attorney; 2) the care exercised by the attorney; 3) the time expended by the attorney; and 4) the results obtained by the attorney. (Lab. Code, § 4906(d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10844.)

  The split of attorney fees was reasonable considering the responsibility, care, time, and results obtained by the attorneys; the lien claimant failed to pursue temporary disability benefits despite medical support; the applicant's attorney failed to support allegations with record citations and did not call witnesses; the lien claimant lacked standing to challenge the award to the applicant's attorney.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ19039281 · 2025-10-28 · San Bernardino District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Additionally, the WCJ's decision to invalidate panel number 7774203 to the extent it was not properly served is consistent with WCAB Rule 10625, which states in relevant part:

  The panel number 7774203 was invalidated because the claim number used was incorrect and the panel was not properly served, consistent with regulatory requirements and precedent.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ8063851 · 2024-11-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2As explained below, we will grant reconsideration and amend the WCJ's decision to find applicant entitled to an unapportioned award of 77% permanent disability. Although we agree that there were no improper ex parte communications, after reviewing the record, we find that there is no substantial medical evidence of apportionment. We will affirm the WCJ's findings regarding applicant's average weekly wage.

  The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's calculation of average weekly wage considering breaks in employment and prior lower wages.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ17527839 · 2024-08-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The Court found defendant's strike of Dr. Arbi Mizaians was timely and therefore defendant is not liable for the cost of reports issued by Dr. Arbi Mizaians. However, the Court also found pursuant to Labor Code 4605 applicant has the right to obtain medical reporting, at his or her own expense, of a consulting physician or any attending physicians whom he or she desires; and therefore, Dr. Arbi Mizaians medical reporting was found to be admissible and may be relied upon to issue a final finding subject to the reporting meeting the substantial medical evidence threshold. Following review of all the evidence the Court found sanctions under Labor Code 5813 are not warranted at this time, and Ordered the matter off calendar. In response Defendant filed the pending Petition for Reconsideration and in the alternative Petition for Removal.

  The WCJ found defendant's strike of Dr. Arbi Mizaians was timely, so defendant is not liable for his report costs, but the report is admissible as self-procured medical reporting under Labor Code 4605 and may be relied upon if it meets the substantial medical evidence threshold.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12226694 · 2024-06-17Penalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.91. In the applicant (ADJ12226694), it appears that Lance Garrett signed a petition for reconsideration, which was verified by Susan Garrett, that appears to have been filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or was an action that appears to be indisputably without merit.

  The petitions for reconsideration were filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings or with improper motive, or were indisputably without merit, warranting sanctions and costs.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ12226694 · 2024-06-17Penalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8While it is true that an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) is a final order, and thus subject to reconsideration, one may only file for reconsideration in good faith. Every issue raised in the Petitions for Reconsideration were issues set for trial. No reasonable explanation exists for filing a petition for reconsideration of an issue set for trial on the morning of trial. Such conduct defies logic. It appears that the Petitions for Reconsideration in these matters were filed as subterfuge, and that the true motive was to achieve a delay in the trial. This appears particularly true, given the overall pattern of conduct in that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed at least eight other petitions for reconsideration within this same time frame, all of which were filed to delay trial settings. (See Ledezma, supra.)

  The petitions for reconsideration were filed solely to delay trial proceedings, were without merit, and constituted bad-faith conduct warranting sanctions and costs.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ16431629 · 2024-06-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Labor Code section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the "reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, at p. 478), and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 475.)

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to review the merits of the sanctions and determined that a hearing was necessary to create a record for proper adjudication, leading to rescission of the sanctions order and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ8965291 · 2024-05-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett halted trial proceedings in eight cases by filing petitions for reconsideration that were indisputably without merit and filed for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay. Most of these petitions were filed on the morning of trial without any advance notice to the court, opposing counsel, or witnesses. Their conduct was deliberate, which is evidenced by both the pattern of filing such petitions in eight separate cases and their failure to appear in each of these cases after the petition for reconsideration was filed.

  The petitions for reconsideration were filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, were indisputably without merit, and caused significant delays and resource waste, warranting full sanctions.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8965291 · 2024-04-10Sanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.20NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that absent written objection in which good cause to the contrary is demonstrated, within twenty (20) days plus five (5) additional days for mailing (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1), 10600) after service of this Notice that pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 and Appeals Board Rule 10421 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421) the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board will order SUSAN GARRETT (CA BAR #195580), to pay sanctions and reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and costs, as follows:

  Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett repeatedly filed petitions for reconsideration of non-final orders, with the apparent intent to delay trial dates after being denied continuances, despite prior notice that such petitions were improper and sanctionable.

  Official decision · page 20 →
• ADJ15382349 · 2024-04-10Sanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted removal in these matters on our own motion to provide an opportunity to study and address the issues of sanctions and costs under Labor Code section 58131. Having completed our review, we now issue an Order of Consolidation and a Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions and Costs (En Banc).

  The Appeals Board found that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, which were indisputably without merit, justifying sanctions and costs.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14953769 · 2023-02-28 · Long Beach District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5While the Answer to the Application was properly served by the defendant, and applicant's attorney may have been aware that defendant denied injury as a result, the Answer did not include a "request for a medical evaluation pursuant to Section 4060" as required by section 4062.2 and AD Rule 30(b). As part of defendant's Exhibit B, the panel "packet," defendant included its denial letter of March 10, 2022, but this letter was not served on applicant's attorney as required by section 4062.2(b). Accordingly, applicant's attorney was not afforded due process by way of an opportunity to object, as set forth under section 4062.2(b). "Due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to present evidence in regards to the issues." (Rea v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 625, 643 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 312]; see also Fortich v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1449, 1452-1454 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 537]. Therefore, Panel number 780460 is invalid.

  Panel number 7480460 was found invalid because defendant did not serve applicant's attorney with the denial letter as required by Labor Code section 4062.2 and AD Rule 30(b), depriving applicant's attorney of due process and opportunity to object.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14819466 · 2022-10-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2The Applicant was employed for Defendant La Venadita Meat Market Inc. on May 22, 2021 when he sustained an admitted industrial injury to his right index finger. A QME panel was requested by Applicant's attorney on September 20, 2021. The panel was issued on September 21, 2021 and served on Defendant by Applicant's counsel on September 21, 2021. Applicant struck Russell Ellis on September 28, 2021. Defendant struck Joel Bird on October 4. 2021. The remaining QME on the list was Emily Holbrook. The matter proceeded to an Expedited Hearing on November 29, 2021. The issue before this court was whether the Defendant's panel strike was timely.

  The court found that the defendant's strike on October 4, 2021, was timely because the time to strike is triggered by service of the panel list, not assignment, and the defendant's strike was within the allowed time including the mailbox rule extension.

  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.

• GARRETT LAW GROUP
• Garrett Law Group
• GARRETT LAW GROUP, PC
• GARRETT LAW
• Garrett Law
• Garrett Law Group, PC
• GARRETT LAW GROUP. P.C.
• GARRETT LAW GROUP PC

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.