California WCABLaw firm

Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara

Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara is named in 51 released California WCAB decisions from 2014–2026. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (10), Jurisdiction / venue (9) and Liens (8). They were heard most often at Santa Ana, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Glenn Stuckey & Partners (6).

Decisions: 51
Years: 2014–2026
Issues disputed: 11
District offices: 11

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 34 of 37 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.

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

45 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

23 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

Santa Ana 19
Anaheim 10
Los Angeles 7
Marina del Rey 4
Long Beach 3
Oxnard 2
Riverside 2
Pomona 1
San Bernardino 1
Stockton 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.

25 for the defense
17 for the applicant
10 returned for more record

Counted over 49 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.

ADJ9219469 · 2026-07-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensmixed
Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues of this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Lien clamant Superior Chiropractic Care seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on July 12, 2022, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in pertinent part, that (1) while employed by defendant on January 30, 2010, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the back, respiratory, upper extremities, hands, nerves, and fingers and lien claimant Del Carmen disputes injury to respiratory and nerves (ADJ7174695); (2) while employed by defendant during the period of August 1, 1996 through May 1, 2012, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to the back, respiratory, upper extremities, hands, nerves, and fingers, and lien claimant Del Carmen disputes injury to respiratory and nerves (ADJ92l9469); (3) lien claimant Del Carmen’s exhibits 3 through 32 (Dr.
The WCJ found that the reports of Superior Chiropractic Care do not constitute substantial medical evidence and struck them from the record, but the WCAB amended to admit the reports into evidence while affirming that they do not constitute substantial evidence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3375264 · 2026-07-21 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9evidence to support a denial of benefits. (citation.)” (Kyle v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (City and County of San Francisco) (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 614, 621.) Here, in her Opinion on Decision (OOD), the WCJ provided the following explanation regarding her finding that there was no substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the neck and bilateral shoulders during the periods from March 12, 2000 through March 12, 2001 (ADJ4499046) and from August 23, 2003 through August 23, 2004 (ADJ3207121): Dr. Feiwell, at the request of CIGA, evaluates Applicant, over four years after the Order issued dismissing the original Petition for Change of Administration. In his report of December 12, 2018, he states “At this juncture, I can state that very little if any of complaints or findings are likely due to cumulative trauma and are due to the sequalae of the specific injury, his prior car accident and most significantly his cerebral palsy.” 21 He further states, “I cannot state with medical certainly that any of his increasing complaints of pain are due to anything other than his underlying cerebral palsy and the prior specific injury in 2003.” 22 He does request the complete medical file and treating physicians records, as well as a formal job analysis.
The WCJ found no substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the neck and bilateral shoulders during the periods from March 12, 2000 through March 12, 2001 and from August 23, 2003 through August 23, 2004, based on medical reports that lacked sufficient reasoning or relied on inaccurate job histories.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ2235268 · 2026-07-13 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of the “Findings and Award” (F&A) issued on March 9, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained an industrial cumulative injury through the period ending on November 8, 1993, to his lower back, bilateral knees, and psyche. The WCJ found applicant’s internal injury in the form of internal non-industrial. The WCJ further found that applicant was entitled to temporary disability for the period of May 25, 2010 to present. The WCJ found that applicant’s injury caused permanent partial disability of 94.50%, without apportionment and awarded permanent disability accordingly. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because injury in the form of internal and in the form of incontinence were caused by his industrial injury and that the reporting of applicant’s vocational expert establishes permanent total disability. Defendant contends that liability for payment of temporary disability benefits should have ceased when applicant was declared permanent and stationary in 2011. Defendant also argues that the apportionment opinions of the agreed medical evaluators (AMEs) constitute substantial medical evidence and should have been followed.
The WCJ's original findings on permanent disability and apportionment were rescinded due to insufficient explanation and failure to comply with legal standards. The Appeals Board found that the defendant did not meet its burden to prove apportionment and that the vocational expert's opinion on permanent total disability was supported, but the matter was returned for further proceedings to develop a complete record and opinion.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9477566 · 2026-05-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the supplemental briefing, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, because we conclude that (1) section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply to the claim, but that (2) the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, a necessary factual predicate to application of those subdivisions.
The Board concluded that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply, but the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, which is necessary to apply those subdivisions.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ1022470 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adeferred
Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the decisions in ADJ3880940 and ADJ4230890, and substitute new decisions that find that CIGA and Desert have joint and several liability and order that Desert is to administer applicant's further medical treatment, and defer the issue of new and further disability in ADJ4230890. We make no other changes to any of the other decisions.
The Board deferred the issue of new and further disability because the record was inadequate to determine whether the applicant sustained new and further disability and whether a petition to reopen was filed, and CIGA waived the issue by not raising it earlier.
Official decision · page 9 →
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 →
ADJ13556390 · 2025-08-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.10IV. Accordingly, we grant defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law.
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study whether defendants are exempt from California jurisdiction under Labor Code § 3600.5(b) and related exemptions, deferring final decision pending further review.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ3776569 · 2025-05-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center (DTC) timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Joint Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 20, 2024. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.
The WCAB granted reconsideration to study the lien issues and approved the stipulation resolving the lien, rescinding the prior WCJ order.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3776569 · 2025-05-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center (DTC) timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Joint Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 20, 2024. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.
The Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues and approved the stipulation resolving the lien.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9336762 · 2025-03-17 · Anaheim District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9II. Section 4060(b) allows for a medical-legal evaluation by a treating physician and section 4620(a) defines medical legal expense as "any costs and expenses...for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim." Section 4064(a) provides that an employer is liable for the cost of any comprehensive medical evaluations authorized under section 4060. The regulations provide that the "primary treating physician shall render opinions on all medical issues necessary to determine the employee's eligibility for compensation..." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(d).) AD Rule 9793(h) states: (h) "Medical-legal expense" means any costs or expenses incurred by or on behalf of any party or parties, the administrative director, or the appeals board for X-rays, laboratory fees, other diagnostic tests, medical reports, medical records, medical testimony, and as needed, interpreter's fees, for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim. The cost of medical evaluations, diagnostic tests, and interpreters is not a medical-legal expense unless it is incidental to the production of a comprehensive medical-legal evaluation report, follow-up medical-legal evaluation report, or a supplemental medical-legal evaluation report and all of the following conditions exist:
The Appeals Board found that a medical-legal evaluation performed by the employee's primary treating physician (PTP) is a medical-legal expense for which the employer is liable, even if there is an AME or PQME, and that RMS Medical Group's medical-legal services were reasonable and necessary.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ1556152 · 2025-02-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility Intercare for Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, in liquidation (CIGA) both seek reconsideration of the November 14, 2024 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that in ADJ1556152, in relevant part, applicant is entitled to 90 percent permanent disability after the application of apportionment pursuant to Labor Code1 sections 4663 and 4664.
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review whether apportionment was properly applied and deferred final decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ285288 · 2025-01-03 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, age 49, while employed on 2/29/2000, and during the period 4/15/1995 to 2/29/2000, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment as a soil technician in California with his general employer being GTG, Inc. dba Leighton & Associates, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was American Motorists Insurance, now identified as California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility, Tristar Risk Management, for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company in liquidation. 2. The applicant did not have dual or special employment with Koll Construction Company on February 29, 2000 nor during the period October 1999 to February 29, 2000.
The evidence showed Koll did not exercise control over applicant's work, applicant was paid and supervised by GTG, Inc., and Koll's role was limited to scheduling and oversight without direct control, thus no dual or special employment existed.
Official decision · page 11 →

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.

GUILFORD, SARVAS & CARBONARA
GUILFORD SARVAS & CARBONARA
GUILFORD SARVAS & CARBONARA LLP
Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara
GUILFORD SARVAS & CARBONARA, LLP
Guilford, Sarvas & Carbonara
GUILFORD, SARVAS & CARBONARA, LLP
Law Offices of Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara
GUILFORD, SARVAS & CARBONARA LLP
Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara LLP
GUILFORD, SARVAS AND CARBONARA
GUILFORD SARVAS

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 →

Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara

Decisions

Years

2014–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

What they litigate

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

How the appealed decisions came out

25 for the defense

17 for the applicant

10 returned for more record

Decisions

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

ADJ9219469 · 2026-07-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensmixed

Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues of this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Lien clamant Superior Chiropractic Care seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on July 12, 2022, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in pertinent part, that (1) while employed by defendant on January 30, 2010, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the back, respiratory, upper extremities, hands, nerves, and fingers and lien claimant Del Carmen disputes injury to respiratory and nerves (ADJ7174695); (2) while employed by defendant during the period of August 1, 1996 through May 1, 2012, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to the back, respiratory, upper extremities, hands, nerves, and fingers, and lien claimant Del Carmen disputes injury to respiratory and nerves (ADJ92l9469); (3) lien claimant Del Carmen’s exhibits 3 through 32 (Dr.

The WCJ found that the reports of Superior Chiropractic Care do not constitute substantial medical evidence and struck them from the record, but the WCAB amended to admit the reports into evidence while affirming that they do not constitute substantial evidence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3375264 · 2026-07-21 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9evidence to support a denial of benefits. (citation.)” (Kyle v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (City and County of San Francisco) (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 614, 621.) Here, in her Opinion on Decision (OOD), the WCJ provided the following explanation regarding her finding that there was no substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the neck and bilateral shoulders during the periods from March 12, 2000 through March 12, 2001 (ADJ4499046) and from August 23, 2003 through August 23, 2004 (ADJ3207121): Dr. Feiwell, at the request of CIGA, evaluates Applicant, over four years after the Order issued dismissing the original Petition for Change of Administration. In his report of December 12, 2018, he states “At this juncture, I can state that very little if any of complaints or findings are likely due to cumulative trauma and are due to the sequalae of the specific injury, his prior car accident and most significantly his cerebral palsy.” 21 He further states, “I cannot state with medical certainly that any of his increasing complaints of pain are due to anything other than his underlying cerebral palsy and the prior specific injury in 2003.” 22 He does request the complete medical file and treating physicians records, as well as a formal job analysis.

The WCJ found no substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the neck and bilateral shoulders during the periods from March 12, 2000 through March 12, 2001 and from August 23, 2003 through August 23, 2004, based on medical reports that lacked sufficient reasoning or relied on inaccurate job histories.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ2235268 · 2026-07-13 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of the “Findings and Award” (F&A) issued on March 9, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained an industrial cumulative injury through the period ending on November 8, 1993, to his lower back, bilateral knees, and psyche. The WCJ found applicant’s internal injury in the form of internal non-industrial. The WCJ further found that applicant was entitled to temporary disability for the period of May 25, 2010 to present. The WCJ found that applicant’s injury caused permanent partial disability of 94.50%, without apportionment and awarded permanent disability accordingly. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because injury in the form of internal and in the form of incontinence were caused by his industrial injury and that the reporting of applicant’s vocational expert establishes permanent total disability. Defendant contends that liability for payment of temporary disability benefits should have ceased when applicant was declared permanent and stationary in 2011. Defendant also argues that the apportionment opinions of the agreed medical evaluators (AMEs) constitute substantial medical evidence and should have been followed.

The WCJ's original findings on permanent disability and apportionment were rescinded due to insufficient explanation and failure to comply with legal standards. The Appeals Board found that the defendant did not meet its burden to prove apportionment and that the vocational expert's opinion on permanent total disability was supported, but the matter was returned for further proceedings to develop a complete record and opinion.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9477566 · 2026-05-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the supplemental briefing, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, because we conclude that (1) section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply to the claim, but that (2) the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, a necessary factual predicate to application of those subdivisions.

The Board concluded that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply, but the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, which is necessary to apply those subdivisions.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ1022470 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adeferred

Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the decisions in ADJ3880940 and ADJ4230890, and substitute new decisions that find that CIGA and Desert have joint and several liability and order that Desert is to administer applicant's further medical treatment, and defer the issue of new and further disability in ADJ4230890. We make no other changes to any of the other decisions.

The Board deferred the issue of new and further disability because the record was inadequate to determine whether the applicant sustained new and further disability and whether a petition to reopen was filed, and CIGA waived the issue by not raising it earlier.

Official decision · page 9 →

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 →

ADJ13556390 · 2025-08-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.10IV. Accordingly, we grant defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study whether defendants are exempt from California jurisdiction under Labor Code § 3600.5(b) and related exemptions, deferring final decision pending further review.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ3776569 · 2025-05-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center (DTC) timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Joint Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 20, 2024. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

The WCAB granted reconsideration to study the lien issues and approved the stipulation resolving the lien, rescinding the prior WCJ order.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3776569 · 2025-05-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center (DTC) timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Joint Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 20, 2024. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

The Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues and approved the stipulation resolving the lien.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9336762 · 2025-03-17 · Anaheim District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9II. Section 4060(b) allows for a medical-legal evaluation by a treating physician and section 4620(a) defines medical legal expense as "any costs and expenses...for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim." Section 4064(a) provides that an employer is liable for the cost of any comprehensive medical evaluations authorized under section 4060. The regulations provide that the "primary treating physician shall render opinions on all medical issues necessary to determine the employee's eligibility for compensation..." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(d).) AD Rule 9793(h) states: (h) "Medical-legal expense" means any costs or expenses incurred by or on behalf of any party or parties, the administrative director, or the appeals board for X-rays, laboratory fees, other diagnostic tests, medical reports, medical records, medical testimony, and as needed, interpreter's fees, for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim. The cost of medical evaluations, diagnostic tests, and interpreters is not a medical-legal expense unless it is incidental to the production of a comprehensive medical-legal evaluation report, follow-up medical-legal evaluation report, or a supplemental medical-legal evaluation report and all of the following conditions exist:

The Appeals Board found that a medical-legal evaluation performed by the employee's primary treating physician (PTP) is a medical-legal expense for which the employer is liable, even if there is an AME or PQME, and that RMS Medical Group's medical-legal services were reasonable and necessary.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ1556152 · 2025-02-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility Intercare for Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, in liquidation (CIGA) both seek reconsideration of the November 14, 2024 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that in ADJ1556152, in relevant part, applicant is entitled to 90 percent permanent disability after the application of apportionment pursuant to Labor Code1 sections 4663 and 4664.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review whether apportionment was properly applied and deferred final decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ285288 · 2025-01-03 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.11JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, age 49, while employed on 2/29/2000, and during the period 4/15/1995 to 2/29/2000, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment as a soil technician in California with his general employer being GTG, Inc. dba Leighton & Associates, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was American Motorists Insurance, now identified as California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility, Tristar Risk Management, for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company in liquidation. 2. The applicant did not have dual or special employment with Koll Construction Company on February 29, 2000 nor during the period October 1999 to February 29, 2000.

The evidence showed Koll did not exercise control over applicant's work, applicant was paid and supervised by GTG, Inc., and Koll's role was limited to scheduling and oversight without direct control, thus no dual or special employment existed.

Official decision · page 11 →

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.

GUILFORD, SARVAS & CARBONARA

GUILFORD SARVAS & CARBONARA

GUILFORD SARVAS & CARBONARA LLP

Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara

GUILFORD SARVAS & CARBONARA, LLP

Guilford, Sarvas & Carbonara

GUILFORD, SARVAS & CARBONARA, LLP

Law Offices of Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara

GUILFORD, SARVAS & CARBONARA LLP

Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara LLP

GUILFORD, SARVAS AND CARBONARA

GUILFORD SARVAS