California WCABLaw firm

Glass Law Group

Glass Law Group is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (2), AOE/COE (1) and Cumulative trauma (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Oxnard. The firm it meets most often is Albert and Mackenzie (2).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2023–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 4

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 7 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

2 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 7
Oxnard 1
Sacramento 1
San Diego 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.

4 for the applicant
3 for the defense
3 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ11324273 · 2026-06-01 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on March 16, 2026, of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)'s February 17, 2026, Joint Findings, Award & Order (FA&O), in which, as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained 57% disability in ADJ11728160, the cumulative claim.
The WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to rebut the AMA Guides impairment ratings and denied the claim for 100% disability under the presumption of total disability for loss of both hands or use thereof.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ4417519 · 2024-12-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5injury, while employed on June 18, 2002 as a painter and construction laborer, at Newbury Park, by David Culbertson, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his neck, left shoulder, left elbow, left wrist, and low back. 2. Pursuant to Labor Code section 3352, applicant was not an employee of Gabriela Vickrey and Randy Vickrey as they owned or occupied the residential dwelling and applicant worked at the residential dwelling for less than 52 hours. 3. David Culbertson did not own or occupy the dwelling where applicant's injury occurred so that Labor Code section 3352 and 3715 do not apply to his employment of applicant. 4. Applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations as the employer failed to provide applicant with a claim form or other statutory notices of his right to seek workers' compensation and thus, the statute of limitations was equitably tolled. 5. Defendant did not meet his burden of proof to show prejudice under the doctrine of laches. Furthermore, defendant, an uninsured employer, has unclean hands.
The statute of limitations was equitably tolled because the employer failed to provide a claim form or statutory notices; defendant did not prove prejudice under laches and had unclean hands as an uninsured employer.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ16748561 · 2024-11-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Orders of August 22, 2024 in case ADJ16748561, wherein it was found applicant did not sustain industrial cumulative injury during a cumulative period ending October 2008 to his back, neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, hips, knees, heart, gastrointestinal system, head, or in the forms of varicose veins or sexual dysfunction. The WCJ thus issued an order that applicant take nothing by way of his workers' compensation claim.
The WCJ found no industrial cumulative injury due to lack of evidence of orthopedic cumulative injury, but the WCAB found the record incomplete and remanded for further development to determine if orthopedic injury caused the gastrointestinal issues.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11713524 · 2024-11-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded
Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, we will rescind the F&O, and substitute findings that applicant's Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is December 2, 2020, and that the issue of whether applicant sustained separate cumulative injuries during his employment with defendant and his subsequent employment with All-Time Maintenance is deferred. We make no changes to Findings 1, 2 and 3. We will return the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The Appeals Board found that the applicant's date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is December 2, 2020, based on medical confirmation by QME Dr. Viswanath, and that the issue of separate cumulative injuries with subsequent employer All-Time Maintenance is deferred due to lack of joinder and undeveloped record.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ10997880 · 2023-08-28 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.72. The issue of injury in the form of hypertension is deferred with jurisdiction reserved.
The WCJ found the physical injuries did not constitute a catastrophic injury under Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4660.1(c)(2)(B), and deferred the permanent disability rating and hypertension injury issues pending further medical development.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ17814379 · 2025-12-04 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable
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 proceeded to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9997985 · 2025-11-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7First, we emphasize that defendant's Second Amended Petition lacked a valid proof of service. Next, the Second Amended Petition, the NIT, and the resulting Order imposing sanctions were served at an incorrect address for applicant's attorneys so that there was no valid service. Thus, the NIT was void ab initio, and the Order based on the NIT is void as well.
The WCJ's Order Imposing Sanctions was based on defective service and lack of evidentiary record, violating due process, so the Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the sanctions order.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ18756905 · 2025-10-13 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order compelling applicant's deposition issued on March 27, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's order compelling deposition was issued without creating a formal record, violating due process and causing irreparable harm, thus justifying removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14637910 · 2023-06-26 · Van Nuys 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 was dismissed as moot because the parties settled and the matter was taken off calendar before trial.
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.

GLASS LAW GROUP
GLASS LAW
GLASS LAW GROUP, INC.
GLASS LAW FIRM

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 →

Glass Law Group

Decisions

Years

2023–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

3 for the defense

3 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ11324273 · 2026-06-01 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on March 16, 2026, of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)'s February 17, 2026, Joint Findings, Award & Order (FA&O), in which, as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained 57% disability in ADJ11728160, the cumulative claim.

The WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to rebut the AMA Guides impairment ratings and denied the claim for 100% disability under the presumption of total disability for loss of both hands or use thereof.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ4417519 · 2024-12-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5injury, while employed on June 18, 2002 as a painter and construction laborer, at Newbury Park, by David Culbertson, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his neck, left shoulder, left elbow, left wrist, and low back. 2. Pursuant to Labor Code section 3352, applicant was not an employee of Gabriela Vickrey and Randy Vickrey as they owned or occupied the residential dwelling and applicant worked at the residential dwelling for less than 52 hours. 3. David Culbertson did not own or occupy the dwelling where applicant's injury occurred so that Labor Code section 3352 and 3715 do not apply to his employment of applicant. 4. Applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations as the employer failed to provide applicant with a claim form or other statutory notices of his right to seek workers' compensation and thus, the statute of limitations was equitably tolled. 5. Defendant did not meet his burden of proof to show prejudice under the doctrine of laches. Furthermore, defendant, an uninsured employer, has unclean hands.

The statute of limitations was equitably tolled because the employer failed to provide a claim form or statutory notices; defendant did not prove prejudice under laches and had unclean hands as an uninsured employer.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ16748561 · 2024-11-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Orders of August 22, 2024 in case ADJ16748561, wherein it was found applicant did not sustain industrial cumulative injury during a cumulative period ending October 2008 to his back, neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, hips, knees, heart, gastrointestinal system, head, or in the forms of varicose veins or sexual dysfunction. The WCJ thus issued an order that applicant take nothing by way of his workers' compensation claim.

The WCJ found no industrial cumulative injury due to lack of evidence of orthopedic cumulative injury, but the WCAB found the record incomplete and remanded for further development to determine if orthopedic injury caused the gastrointestinal issues.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11713524 · 2024-11-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded

Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, we will rescind the F&O, and substitute findings that applicant's Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is December 2, 2020, and that the issue of whether applicant sustained separate cumulative injuries during his employment with defendant and his subsequent employment with All-Time Maintenance is deferred. We make no changes to Findings 1, 2 and 3. We will return the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The Appeals Board found that the applicant's date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is December 2, 2020, based on medical confirmation by QME Dr. Viswanath, and that the issue of separate cumulative injuries with subsequent employer All-Time Maintenance is deferred due to lack of joinder and undeveloped record.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ10997880 · 2023-08-28 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.72. The issue of injury in the form of hypertension is deferred with jurisdiction reserved.

The WCJ found the physical injuries did not constitute a catastrophic injury under Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4660.1(c)(2)(B), and deferred the permanent disability rating and hypertension injury issues pending further medical development.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ17814379 · 2025-12-04 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable

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 proceeded to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9997985 · 2025-11-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7First, we emphasize that defendant's Second Amended Petition lacked a valid proof of service. Next, the Second Amended Petition, the NIT, and the resulting Order imposing sanctions were served at an incorrect address for applicant's attorneys so that there was no valid service. Thus, the NIT was void ab initio, and the Order based on the NIT is void as well.

The WCJ's Order Imposing Sanctions was based on defective service and lack of evidentiary record, violating due process, so the Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the sanctions order.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ18756905 · 2025-10-13 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order compelling applicant's deposition issued on March 27, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's order compelling deposition was issued without creating a formal record, violating due process and causing irreparable harm, thus justifying removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14637910 · 2023-06-26 · Van Nuys 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 was dismissed as moot because the parties settled and the matter was taken off calendar before trial.

Official decision · page 1 →