California WCABLaw firm

Gorman Law

Gorman Law is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2024–2024. The disputes are Jurisdiction / venue (2). They were heard most often at Redding. The firm it meets most often is Riley Law (11).

Decisions: 11
Years: 2024–2024
Issues disputed: 1
District offices: 1

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

Jurisdiction / venue2

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

Redding 11

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

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ16161110 · 2024-11-14 · Redding District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) "Order Granting Petition for Credit due to Overpayment of Temporary Disability Benefits Pursuant to Labor Code § 4909" (Order) issued on April 23, 2024, wherein the WCJ summarily granted defendant's petition for credit.
The WCJ summarily granted credit without an evidentiary hearing despite applicant's objection, violating due process; the Board rescinded the order and remanded for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19153721 · 2024-06-28 · Redding District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The Appeals Board is authorized under Labor Code section 5310 to remove to itself, as it deems necessary in any workers' compensation matter, "the proceedings in any claim." This power of removal is discretionary and is generally employed only as an extraordinary remedy. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843, subd. (a); Castro v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 61 Cal.Comp.Cases 1460 (writ den.); Swedlow, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Smith) (1985) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 476 (writ den.).)
The Appeals Board has discretionary authority under Labor Code section 5310 to remove proceedings to itself as an extraordinary remedy; removal was granted to obtain additional information and defer final decision on merits.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ12745529 · 2024-10-28 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.98, § 10960, italics added.) It has long been recognized that "[t]he allegations in a statement charging bias and prejudice of a judge must set forth specifically the facts on which the charge is predicated," that "[a] statement containing nothing but conclusions and setting forth no facts constituting a ground for disqualification may be ignored," and that "[w]here no facts are set forth in the statement there is no issue of fact to be determined." (Mackie v. Dyer (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 395, 399, 316 P.2d 366.) Furthermore, even if detailed and verified allegations of fact have been made, it is settled law that a WCJ is not subject to disqualification under section 641(f) if, prior to rendering a decision, the WCJ expresses an opinion regarding a legal or factual issue but the petitioner fails to show that this opinion is a fixed one that could not be changed upon the production of evidence and the presentation of arguments at or after further hearing. (Taylor v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Thomas) (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 75, 79§ 80 [100 P.2d 511, 5 Cal.Comp.Cases 61].) Additionally,
Applicant's petition for disqualification was skeletal, lacking specific factual allegations, and thus was dismissed.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ16161110 · 2024-07-01 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On May 20, 2024, applicant's attorney filed a "Petition for Reconsideration of Order and Removal from WCJ and Proposed Supplement to Pending Petition for Disqualification and Removal" (Petition). Applicant seeks reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) "Order Granting Petition for Credit due to Overpayment of Temporary Disability Benefits Pursuant to Labor Code § 4909" issued on April 23, 2024, wherein the WCJ summarily granted defendant's petition for credit.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's April 23, 2024 order was issued without an adequate record, violating due process rights, and thus granted reconsideration and deferred the final decision pending further review.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15884384 · 2024-06-28 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1On April 25, 2024 applicant's attorney filed a Petition for Disqualification seeking to disqualify the entire Redding and Eureka District Offices from hearing an attorney fee lien dispute in this matter. Applicant's attorney filed an amended petition for disqualification on May 20, 2024.
The Appeals Board has discretionary power under Labor Code section 5310 to remove proceedings to itself as an extraordinary remedy; removal was granted to obtain additional information and defer final decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15760386 · 2024-06-28 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1On April 25, 2024 applicant's attorney filed a Petition for Disqualification seeking to disqualify the entire Redding and Eureka District Offices from hearing an attorney fee lien dispute in this matter. Applicant's attorney filed an amended petition for disqualification on May 20, 2024.
The Appeals Board has discretionary power under Labor Code section 5310 to remove proceedings to itself as an extraordinary remedy; removal was granted to obtain additional information and defer final decision.
Official decision · page 1 →

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

4 returned for more record

3 for the applicant

3 for the defense

Decisions

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

ADJ16161110 · 2024-11-14 · Redding District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) "Order Granting Petition for Credit due to Overpayment of Temporary Disability Benefits Pursuant to Labor Code § 4909" (Order) issued on April 23, 2024, wherein the WCJ summarily granted defendant's petition for credit.

The WCJ summarily granted credit without an evidentiary hearing despite applicant's objection, violating due process; the Board rescinded the order and remanded for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19153721 · 2024-06-28 · Redding District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2The Appeals Board is authorized under Labor Code section 5310 to remove to itself, as it deems necessary in any workers' compensation matter, "the proceedings in any claim." This power of removal is discretionary and is generally employed only as an extraordinary remedy. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843, subd. (a); Castro v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 61 Cal.Comp.Cases 1460 (writ den.); Swedlow, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Smith) (1985) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 476 (writ den.).)

The Appeals Board has discretionary authority under Labor Code section 5310 to remove proceedings to itself as an extraordinary remedy; removal was granted to obtain additional information and defer final decision on merits.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ12745529 · 2024-10-28 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.98, § 10960, italics added.) It has long been recognized that "[t]he allegations in a statement charging bias and prejudice of a judge must set forth specifically the facts on which the charge is predicated," that "[a] statement containing nothing but conclusions and setting forth no facts constituting a ground for disqualification may be ignored," and that "[w]here no facts are set forth in the statement there is no issue of fact to be determined." (Mackie v. Dyer (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 395, 399, 316 P.2d 366.) Furthermore, even if detailed and verified allegations of fact have been made, it is settled law that a WCJ is not subject to disqualification under section 641(f) if, prior to rendering a decision, the WCJ expresses an opinion regarding a legal or factual issue but the petitioner fails to show that this opinion is a fixed one that could not be changed upon the production of evidence and the presentation of arguments at or after further hearing. (Taylor v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Thomas) (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 75, 79§ 80 [100 P.2d 511, 5 Cal.Comp.Cases 61].) Additionally,

Applicant's petition for disqualification was skeletal, lacking specific factual allegations, and thus was dismissed.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ16161110 · 2024-07-01 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On May 20, 2024, applicant's attorney filed a "Petition for Reconsideration of Order and Removal from WCJ and Proposed Supplement to Pending Petition for Disqualification and Removal" (Petition). Applicant seeks reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) "Order Granting Petition for Credit due to Overpayment of Temporary Disability Benefits Pursuant to Labor Code § 4909" issued on April 23, 2024, wherein the WCJ summarily granted defendant's petition for credit.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's April 23, 2024 order was issued without an adequate record, violating due process rights, and thus granted reconsideration and deferred the final decision pending further review.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15884384 · 2024-06-28 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1On April 25, 2024 applicant's attorney filed a Petition for Disqualification seeking to disqualify the entire Redding and Eureka District Offices from hearing an attorney fee lien dispute in this matter. Applicant's attorney filed an amended petition for disqualification on May 20, 2024.

The Appeals Board has discretionary power under Labor Code section 5310 to remove proceedings to itself as an extraordinary remedy; removal was granted to obtain additional information and defer final decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15760386 · 2024-06-28 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1On April 25, 2024 applicant's attorney filed a Petition for Disqualification seeking to disqualify the entire Redding and Eureka District Offices from hearing an attorney fee lien dispute in this matter. Applicant's attorney filed an amended petition for disqualification on May 20, 2024.

Official decision · page 1 →