Glauber Berenson Vego

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 48
• Los Angeles 8
• Riverside 4
• Pomona 2
• Santa Ana 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.

• 37 for the applicant
• 22 for the defense
• 10 returned for more record

Counted over 60 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.

• ADJ12333976 · 2026-03-19 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In the instant case, the February 1, 2021 decision resolved the threshold issue of injury AOE/COE in both claims. As such, those findings are considered "final." Per the WCJ, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE while employed by defendant during the period June 6, 2018 through June 6, 2019 to the various body parts outlined under ADJ12812012 and ADJ12333976. (F&O, February 1, 2021.) As set forth above, the remedy for challenging a final order of the WCJ or the Appeals Board is a petition for reconsideration, and the parties have 25 days within which to file a petition from a final decision served by mail upon an address in California. Given that the injury findings were not challenged by either party, they are now final and binding. The WCJ's subsequent August 16, 2021 F&O wherein he finds no injury AOE/COE is therefore void. Due to the potential confusion caused by the conflicting February 1, 2021 and August 16, 2021 decisions, we will reiterate the original injury findings in the new F&O outlined below.

  The WCAB found the February 1, 2021 injury findings final and binding, rescinded the August 16, 2021 contrary findings, and reinstated injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ18421273 · 2026-03-03 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of two decisions issued concurrently by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In a Findings and Award of October 30, 2025 in case ADJ18421273, it was found that while employed as a water system technician on December 28, 2020, applicant sustained industrial injury to his right shoulder, causing permanent disability of 11% and the need for further medical treatment. In a Findings and Award of October 30, 2025 in cased ADJ18421294, it was found that while employed as a water system technician during a cumulative period ending July 7, 2021, applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical and lumbar spine causing permanent disability of 23% and the need for further medical treatment, but that there was no cumulative injury to the shoulders, elbows, knees, or in the forms of hypertension or diabetes.

  The WCJ's permanent disability ratings and injury scope findings were based on incomplete medical evidence, particularly regarding left shoulder, elbows, knees, and internal medicine claims, requiring further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17097194 · 2026-02-23 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 25, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his head and lumbar spine; that applicant was intoxicated at the time of injury and that his intoxication was a proximate and substantial cause of the injury; and ordered that applicant take nothing.

  The WCJ found applicant intoxicated and that intoxication was a proximate cause of injury, but the WCAB found evidentiary deficiencies including exclusion of key witness testimony, incomplete medical records for the AME, and lack of applicant testimony on pre-injury vertigo, requiring remand for further development of causation evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15105366 · 2026-02-17 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant applicant's Petition, rescind the F&O, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision.

  The WCAB found that the November 27, 2024 Minutes of Hearing constituted a valid and enforceable order requiring defendant to provide written authorization for medical treatment within 30 days, which defendant failed to timely provide, warranting reconsideration and further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16567344 · 2025-12-26 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4non-industrial factors. For these reasons we find that Dr. Egan's apportionment discussion did not

  Dr. Egan's apportionment opinion was found not to constitute substantial medical evidence because it lacked detailed reasoning required by Escobedo, so apportionment was rejected and permanent disability was increased to 22%.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ17888964 · 2025-12-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of primary treating physician Khalid Ahmed, M.D., is substantial medical evidence. (Hegglin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]; Place v. Workmen's Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc) [a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions].) We observe, moreover, it is well- established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial

  The WCJ's reliance on Dr. Ahmed's medical opinion was supported by substantial evidence, including adequate examination, history, and reasoning, and was not speculative or erroneous, so the medical evidence was upheld.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ15158069 · 2025-11-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. Where the evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, we are not persuaded that there is substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision.

  The Appeals Board found the record was not properly developed and that the WCJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, warranting reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16913929 · 2025-10-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant both seek reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 27, 2025, wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a server, waitress, manager, and kitchen worker during the period of January 1, 1986 to June 19, 2020, sustained injury arising out of and during the course of employment to her thoracic spine, lumbar spine, shoulders, elbows, wrists, knees, ankles, and feet, causing permanent disability of 95 percent. The decision also found that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because the date of injury of the cumulative injury is June 7, 2023, based on Labor Code section 54121 (Finding of Fact #11), and because this date is after the date of applicant's termination, her claim is not barred by the post- termination defense (Finding of Fact #12). The F&A further found that the reports of Gabriel Rubanenko, M.D., constitute substantial medical evidence on the issues of injury, temporary disability, date of maximal medical improvement, permanent disability based on whole person

  The claim was not barred by the post-termination defense because the injury date was after termination.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ401657 · 2025-10-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, AME Dr. Siebold issued eight reports and was deposed on three occasions. Dr. Siebold concluded that applicant sustained cumulative injury to his cervical spine, right shoulder, right upper extremity, lumbar spine, left knee, and right knee. While the WCJ may have had some qualms about the sufficiency of the reporting with respect to more complex issues such as applicant's level of permanent disability and causation of permanent disability and apportionment, we believe that Dr. Siebold's reporting more than meets the standard articulated in Clark, supra, as to causation of injury. Therefore, we will rescind the F&O and substitute a new F&O that finds that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his cervical spine, right shoulder, right upper extremity, lumbar spine, left knee, and right knee.

  The WCAB found that the prior stipulations were not enforceable because the WCJ did not make findings or orders approving them, implicitly rejecting the stipulations. The AME Dr. Siebold's reports were found to constitute substantial evidence supporting cumulative injury to specified body parts during the employment period. The reports of Dr. Brourman were rejected as not substantial evidence due to inadequate history and incorrect legal standard application.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12975722 · 2025-09-05 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the May 15, 2025 Joint Findings and Award (F&A) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained new and further disability to the right hip, hypertension, and diabetes as a result of a cumulative injury during the period from May 13, 2015 through May 13, 2016 (ADJ12975722) which resulted in an increase in permanent disability from 57% to 70%. (F&A, p. 2.) The WCJ also found that applicant sustained a new injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on February 4, 2020 (ADJ10528292) to the right shoulder resulting in a separate 28% permanent disability.

  The WCJ's reliance on Dr. Heskiaoff's medical opinion was upheld as substantial evidence, and the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to apportion increased impairment for hypertension and diabetes to the new injury rather than the cumulative injury.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11381920 · 2025-06-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, it appears that defendant reasonably relied on the pre-trial conference statement and the discussions at the time of trial to determine what issues it would need to defend at trial. Consequently, we cannot interpose our own findings on the specific issue of accrued and owing temporary disability, which was not identified as an issue pending at the time of the pre-trial conference statement or as an issue for adjudication at the time of trial. Under these circumstances, we cannot "do justice" as applicant argues, by interposing our own findings on the issue of accrued and unpaid temporary disability without violating the parties' rights to due process. (Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584] citing Rucker, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 157-158).

  The WCAB found that the issue of accrued temporary disability benefits and attorney fees was not identified for trial, and adjudicating it without notice would violate due process. Therefore, the issue was deferred to avoid due process violation.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11645837 · 2025-05-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the January 21, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact, Order and Award (FO&A) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that while employed as a senior insurance examiner/financial analyst by defendant during the period from October 19, 2017 through October 19, 2018 (ADJ11645837), applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical and lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, right hand, psyche, fibromyalgia, gastritis, IBS, migraines, and dermatitis. The WCJ also found injury AOE/COE on October 25, 2018 (ADJ11645835) to the overlapping body parts of the cervical and lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, right hand, psyche, fibromyalgia, gastritis, IBS, and migraines. The WCJ awarded retroactive temporary disability from July 20, 2019, through September 2, 2020, for the cumulative injury (less credit for prior temporary disability or ILD payments for the same period), as well as permanent disability based upon combined impairment from both injuries.

  The Appeals Board found no conflict between the prior FA&O and the retroactive temporary disability awarded by the WCJ, as the applicant was later determined to be temporarily totally disabled during the period in question.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 19.

• GLAUBER BERENSON VEGO
• Glauber Berenson Vego
• GLAUBER BERENSON
• GLAUBER, BERENSON & VEGO
• GLAUBER, BERENSON, VEGO
• Glauber, Berenson & Vego
• Glauber Berenson & Vego
• GLAUBER BERENSON & VEGO
• GLAUBER BERENSON DORMAN & SUNRCZ LLP
• LAW OFFICES OF GLAUBER BERENSON VEGO
• Glauber Berenson Vego, LLP
• GLAUBER BERENSON GLENDALE

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.