Gilson Daub

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Oakland 7
• Van Nuys 7
• Los Angeles 6
• Bakersfield 5
• Riverside 4
• San Francisco 4
• Anaheim 2
• Long Beach 2
• Marina del Rey 2
• Salinas 2
• San Bernardino 2
• Fresno 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.

• 21 for the defense
• 18 for the applicant
• 7 returned for more record

Counted over 45 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.

• ADJ8984436 · 2026-06-30 · Riverside District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.151. the applicant, age 31 at the time of injury, while employed during the period from November 5, 2005 through April 9, 2013, as a senior investigative technician, occupation group number in dispute, at Riverside, California, by the County of Riverside, permissibly self-insured and self-administered, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her psyche and internal system.

  The Appeals Board found that applicant sustained injury to psyche and internal system arising out of employment, and that defendant did not meet its burden to prove the injury was barred by lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel actions under Labor Code section 3208.5(h).

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ14019875 · 2026-01-12 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5... Here, there are numerous issues with Dr. Williams' reporting. First, it appears he only reviewed medical reports at the time he performed his initial evaluation in May of 2020, and in fact, some of those reports were viewed on applicant's phone. (Exhibit 15 at p. 4.) Further, the few records he reviewed only addressed the thoracic spine, and the most recent report was dated December of 2018. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) Aside from some x-rays, it is unclear whether applicant received any medical treatment to his knee or lumbar spine.

  The WCJ's findings that Dr. Williams' reports were not substantial evidence and ordering the parties to agree on an AME were preliminarily found to lack sufficient support, leading to granting reconsideration and deferring final decision for further review.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12069406 · 2025-12-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.11Accordingly, we rescind the October 3, 2022 F&O and substitute a new F&O that defers the issues of whether applicant sustained a high velocity eye injury and whether he is entitled to additional temporary disability pursuant to section 4656(c)(3)(F). We return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The Board found the record lacked sufficient medical evidence to establish to a reasonable medical probability that the injury was a high velocity eye injury, and deferred the issue for further development at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ8236211 · 2025-10-24 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6A cost petitioner holds the burden of proof to establish all elements necessary to establish its entitlement to payment for a medical-legal expense. (See § 3205.5, 5705.5; Torres v. AJC Sandblasting (2012) 77 Cal.Comp.Cases 1113, 1115 (Appeals Board en banc).) As we explained in our en banc decision in Colamonico v. Secure Transportation (2019) 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 1059 (Appeals Board en banc), section 4622 provides the framework for reimbursement of medical-legal expenses. Subsection (f) of the statute, however, specifically states that "[t]his section is not applicable unless there has been compliance with Sections 4620 and 4621." (§ 4622(f).)

  The Appeals Board found that the cost petitioner met the burden to show a contested claim existed at the time of service and that the WCJ erred in requiring medical evidence to prove this. The Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter for further proceedings to fully adjudicate the issues including whether the expenses were reasonable and necessary.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ19233122 · 2025-10-06 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the July 3, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed by defendant as a cashier during the period from September 21, 2022 through September 21, 2023, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, and right upper extremity with a need for continuing medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury.

  The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence from Dr. Hughes supporting injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts and need for continuing medical treatment, rejecting defendant's argument that no compensable disability existed on the date of injury.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15643990 · 2025-08-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.5is on disability due to the combined effect of multiple injuries. As the only issues on appeal are temporary disability and section 4850 benefits, we will rescind the F&As and reissue them deferring the issues of temporary disability and section 4850 benefits, and return these matters to the parties to adjust the periods of disability and section 4850 time, with jurisdiction reserved at the trial level in the event of a dispute.

  The Board held that section 4850 benefits run concurrently when the applicant is on disability due to multiple injuries, and the issues of temporary disability and section 4850 benefits were deferred for adjustment at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15031118 · 2025-05-16 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in case number ADJ15031118.

  The WCJ excluded medical evidence from Dr. Shaw and Dr. Jones improperly, limiting the evidentiary record and barring meaningful review; the Appeals Board found the exclusion of Dr. Shaw's QME reports improper under Labor Code section 4062.3 and related statutes, requiring further proceedings to develop the record and properly consider the cumulative trauma injury claim.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17674030 · 2024-12-30 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, lien claimant clearly met the burden of proving applicant's injury was industrial. Dr. Haghighinia's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence by taking an accurate and adequate history of injury and explaining how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. The WCJ faulted the doctor for using an incorrect pronoun in one portion of the report, however this is a common error seen across many medical reports and does not, by itself, warrant rejecting the entirety of the report. The WCJ further noted that the doctor found that applicant had no flexion or extension range of motion measurements of the lumbar spine. This appears to be a misreading as the doctor placed an asterisk in these sections and noted that applicant was having pain in these areas. Again, this is a relatively minor issue that does not warrant rejecting the doctor's finding of industrial injury. Finally, the WCJ noted that the primary treater did not review applicant's prior medical records; however, there is no allegation that any such records exist, or were otherwise obtained and not reviewed.

  Dr. Haghighinia's reporting constituted substantial medical evidence, taking an accurate and adequate history and explaining how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. Minor report errors did not warrant rejection.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ15643990 · 2024-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order (F&A) issued in ADJ15643990 on July 23, 2024 and the Findings and Award and Order (F&A) issued in ADJ13744962 on July 23, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was entitled to a full year of benefits pursuant to Labor Code section 48501 in ADJ15643990 and a second full year of benefits in ADJ13744962, notwithstanding the fact that the periods of applicant's temporary disability partially overlapped.

  The Appeals Board found that the applicant had two separate injuries entitling him to two separate periods of section 4850 benefits, but the issue of overlapping temporary disability periods and how benefits are credited requires further review, leading to granting reconsideration and deferring final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16982310 · 2024-09-13 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4MC Carrier, LLC (hereafter defendant or employer) a self-insured employer under the laws of the state of Nevada, has filed a timely, verified Petition for Reconsideration dated July 1, 2024, challenging the Findings and Order dated June 13, 2024, determining that California has jurisdiction over the work injury sustained by the applicant (hereafter Applicant) on September 30, 2022, and that California law should apply. Defendant contends that the court erroneously exceeded its jurisdiction by finding the following:

  The Appeals Board has personal jurisdiction over the employer and subject matter jurisdiction because the injury occurred in California, the applicant is a California resident, and the contract of employment was accepted in California. The forum selection agreement favoring Nevada is unenforceable due to California's strong governmental interest in protecting its residents injured in California.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ15987800 · 2024-06-07 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on March 20, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that the applicant sustained industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment on May 31, 2021 to his neck, causing permanent disability of 92%, and awarded temporary total disability, permanent disability, future medical care, and attorney fees of 12% of the permanent disability and life pension awarded.

  The WCJ found 92% permanent disability based on the medical evidence but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits and evidence including the incomplete medical record and stipulation not to develop further.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• 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 →

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.

• GILSON DAUB
• Gilson Daub
• LAW OFFICES OF GILSON DAUB
• Law Offices of Gilson Daub
• GILSON DAUB, LLP
• Gilson Daub, 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.