Graiwer & Kaplan

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 18
• Marina del Rey 3
• Long Beach 1
• Pomona 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.

• 11 for the applicant
• 11 for the defense
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 24 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.

• ADJ3301539 · 2025-12-12 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the Stipulations clearly state in Paragraph 4 that: "There is need for medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of said injury pursuant to the AME reports of Richard Siebold, M.D." This is a statement that applicant will require medical treatment based on the current opinion of Dr. Siebold; the stipulation does not state that all future medical treatment issues shall be decided by Dr. Siebold. In addition in Paragraph 8, stipulation 2 states that: "The parties stipulate to the findings of the AME Richard Siebold, MD." This appears to be more likely to be an agreement as to Dr. Siebold's opinion as to applicant's permanent disability, and not a statement that disputes regarding medical treatment would be submitted to Dr. Siebold in the future. Thus, based on the plain language of the Stipulations, we do not find that the parties meant to submit their disputes regarding medical treatment to Dr. Siebold.

  The plain language of the 2003 Stipulations did not show mutual agreement to submit future medical treatment disputes to Dr. Siebold, and there was no evidence to bypass the statutory utilization review and independent medical review processes.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ17646368 · 2024-12-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11This appears to be a finger injury case with minimal residual orthopedic disability after corrective surgery, with the possibility of some other issues as a result of the injury and/or medication. The Court notes that this is not yet a question of additional panels, but of the initial panel, and it appears that Applicant met the procedural requirements for selection of the initial panel specialty.

  The court found insufficient evidence to find the selected gastroenterology specialty inappropriate and denied the request for a replacement QME panel.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ8923383 · 2024-05-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The Applicant was a credible witness who testified he physically did not work for any employer as a production assistant, electrician, or grip after the specific injury of November 22, 1998 (Minutes of Hearing February 2, 2024, page 5, lines 3-6). Although the Applicant was compensated for work until approximately June 1999, the Applicant did not perform any physical work for the employer, but clocked in as he was owed "favors" from work he preformed [sic]on other jobs (Minutes of Hearing February 2, 2024, page 4, lines 13-17).

  The WCJ found no compensable cumulative trauma injury because the applicant did not perform physical work after the specific injury date, which is necessary to support a cumulative trauma claim. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the merits and record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9313967 · 2024-05-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that defendant has not met its burden of proving that it is entitled to credit for LTD benefits against its liability for temporary disability indemnity. We will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and replace it with a decision denying credit. We also include a finding that applicant must be paid temporary disability indemnity at the weekly rate required by Labor Code section 4661.5. To provide applicant with notice, we will defer the issue of attorney's fees.

  Defendant failed to prove entitlement to credit for LTD payments because it did not produce the actual LTD policy, did not prove intent that LTD payments were an advance on workers' compensation benefits, and relied on an employee handbook which was insufficient evidence.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12104893 · 2024-02-12 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of June 28, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") denied applicant's claim of industrial injury caused by disseminated coccidioidomycosis (advanced stage "Valley Fever"). Specifically, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as an assistant principal by the Los Angeles Unified School District during the period December 2, 2017 through June 15, 2018, did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her chest, circulatory system, digestive system, respiratory system, lumbar spine, cervical spine, sexual dysfunction, bilateral upper extremities, right lower extremity, stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep with insomnia.

  The WCJ's denial was rescinded due to unresolved factual and medical issues, including the need for further evidence on exposure to fungal spores and the latency period of Valley Fever, requiring remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12382020 · 2023-12-22 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10The subsequent CT injury must have been filed within the time deadlines in Labor Code Section 5405. The court was persuaded by Applicant's argument in their trial brief, consistent with the Plotnick case, that when treatment is provided for an injury that settled via stipulated award and Applicant has another unfiled date of injury for the same body part, when he gets treatment under the stipulated award he is also getting treatment on the unfiled case for purposes of Labor Code Section 5405(c). Applicant was still getting treatment for the neck under his stipulated award in ADJ6967095 less than a year before the Application for Adjudication was filed in the case as bar for the same body part. Thus, the claim is not barred under Labor Code Section 5405.

  The court found that the claim was timely filed within one year after the last provision of treatment pursuant to Labor Code Section 5405(c), and that ongoing medical treatment tolled the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ10179447 · 2023-06-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Defendant Baron HR, LLC, has filed a timely and properly verified petition for reconsideration arbitrator's Findings and Order re Coverage dated March 28, 2023. The arbitrator offers the following Report and Recommendation in response thereto.

  Petitioner Baron HR, LLC failed to prove insurance coverage under the Hartford/Bison Data Systems policy and failed to provide evidence of coverage for Countrywide Payroll, resulting in denial of coverage and affirming uninsured status.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9313967 · 2023-03-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2Turning to the merits of applicant's contentions, we agree that defendant's actual LTD benefits policy, not just the "disability program overview" dated July 21, 2010 (defense exhibit B), must be admitted into evidence and considered by the WCJ in issuing a new decision. Therefore, we will rescind the WCJ's decision and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings as directed in this opinion, and for a new decision by the WCJ.

  The WCJ's decision was rescinded because the full and complete LTD policy was not admitted into evidence and considered, which was necessary to determine the credit for LTD payments properly.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ7803005 · 2022-09-09 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent total disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on April 16, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to his hands, wrists, psyche, lumbar spine, cervical spine, knees, right shoulder and gastrointestinal system arising out of and in the course of his employment as a painter during a period ending January 25, 2011, by defendant, LA Custom Finish, resulting in temporary disability from February 11, 2011, through February 8, 2013, permanent partial disability of 97% and need of further medical treatment. Applicant contends in his petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in not finding that the injury caused permanent total disability. Defendant Imperium, which insured the employer for workers' compensation liability at the time of the injury, filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be dismissed or denied. The WCJ issued a report in which he recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied.

  The WCJ found permanent partial disability but not permanent total disability; the WCAB approved a compromise and release settlement instead of granting permanent total disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ326655 · 2022-06-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Defendant sought reconsideration of the Joint Amended Findings of Fact and Award issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 4, 2019. In ADJ326655, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a laborer during the period from August 2000 to August 2001, sustained industrial injury to his back, knees, right shoulder, pysche, sleep, and gastrointestinal system. In ADJ439309, the WCJ found applicant while employed as a laborer on February 22, 2001, sustained industrial injury to his back, knees, pysche, sleep, and gastrointestinal system. The consolidated cases resolved by Joint Order Approving Compromise and Release dated July 28, 2015, leaving open the issues of medical treatment and the home health care lien of Belinda the applicant, applicant's daughter. The parties proceeded to trial over the issue of applicant's entitlement to home health care, both retroactively and prospectively, as provided by the applicant. The WCJ awarded the disputed home health care.

  The WCJ's award of home health care was supported by substantial medical evidence including prescriptions and reports from Dr. Sperling and Dr. Sohn, and the Appeals Board found the utilization review determinations denying care were untimely and invalid, thus affirming the award.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9866040 · 2022-04-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4In his initial report of August 4, 2015, Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Lawrence Feiwell, addresses the specific injury of November 19, 2014, involving the Applicant's right and left knee, noting that the Applicant fell in the parking lot and notified his employer of the injury but received no medical treatment. He notes that the Applicant continued working subsequent to this injury. As referenced in the report of Marc Nehorayan, M.D. dated December 28, 2017 (Exhibit 2, EAMS ID 38678301), he notes review of records that include Applicant's initial treatment report and Doctor's First Report of Injury of March 19, 2015, by Dr. Phillip Sobol which note a specific injury of November 19, 2014, due to a fall in the parking lot, for which no treatment was provided although the Applicant notified his employer of the injury. Dr. Sobol notes contusions to both knees. Dr. Sobol provided treatment for the Applicant's orthopedic injuries including the knees, which included medication. No rebuttal evidence or testimony of any witness was provided at trial to rebut that a fall occurred on November 19, 2014, causing injury to the Applicant's knees, or to indicate that the Applicant did not report the injury to his employer or request treatment, as is stated in the reports.

  The evidence showed the applicant sustained injury to the knees on November 19, 2014, reported the injury to employer, and the injury arose out of and in the course of employment without permanent impairment.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ3459081 · 2021-08-30 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company, permissibly self-insured, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order, issued January 6, 2021, wherein a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, sustained permanent total disability as a result of five industrial injuries he sustained while employed as a produce manager. By a prior Findings and Award, issued June 12, 2020, applicant was found to have sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury over the period 1991 to February 6, 2002, in the form of chronic pain and fibromyalgia, in addition to admitted injuries to his bilateral shoulders, lumbar spine, cervical spine, bilateral knees, bilateral upper extremities, psyche, hypertension.

  The WCJ found the applicant permanently totally disabled based on the medical opinion of Dr. Salick regarding fibromyalgia, and the Appeals Board affirmed this finding despite defendant's challenges to apportionment and medical opinions.

  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.

• GRAIWER & KAPLAN
• Graiwer & Kaplan
• GRAIWER & KAPLAN, LLP
• Graiwer & Kaplan, LLP
• GRAIWER, KAPLAN, VERNIK & EVANS, LLP
• GRAIWER, KAPLAN, VERNIK & EVANS
• Graiwer, Kaplan, Vernik & Evans
• Graiwer & Kaplan 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.