Hinden & Breslavsky

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 45
• Los Angeles 9
• Long Beach 2
• Pomona 2
• Riverside 2
• Anaheim 1
• Bakersfield 1
• Marina del Ray 1
• San Bernadino 1
• San Bernardino 1
• San Diego 1
• 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.

• 43 for the defense
• 20 for the applicant
• 7 returned for more record

Counted over 67 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.

• ADJ8706562 · 2026-08-10 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9If applicant’s argument were followed, we would be compelled to exclude the evidence obtained by applicant after the close of the MSC, which included the January 2026 ratings report of Dr. Borsada, which provided applicant’s impairment for sleep disorder. In this case both parties continued to conduct discovery after the close of the MSC. B. Compensability of Orthopedic Body Parts To constitute substantial evidence “... 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.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) “When the foundation of an expert’s testimony is determined to be inadequate as a matter of law, we are not bound by an apparent conflict in the evidence created by his bare conclusions.” (People v. Bassett (1968) 69 Cal.2d 122, 139.) Applicant argues that a finding of industrial injury should issue as to applicant’s orthopedic body parts. Applicant argues that the reporting of Dr. Greenfield should be followed in this regard, however, Dr. Greenfield issued no opinion as to whether applicant suffered an orthopedic injury

  No medical opinion addressed causation of orthopedic injury; therefore, no finding of industrial injury to orthopedic body parts could be made.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ12221422 · 2026-07-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Dental Trauma Center (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Orders (F&O) of April 15, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that: 1) applicant while employed on March 9, 2019 as a journeyman electrician sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, head, psyche, right knee, bilateral shoulders, left elbow, right knee, and right ankle; and that 2) applicant did not sustain a dental injury. Lien claimant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant did not sustain a dental injury because: 1) the WCJ failed to address substantial medical evidence by failing to analyze, discuss or mention Dr. Schames’ and Dr. Pietruszka’s reporting and, “[i]nstead, the WCJ denied the claim solely because ‘no testimony’ was elicited”; 2) the decision should be based on medical evidence and not lay testimony; 3) if the WCJ thought the evidence was insufficient, then the record should have been developed; and 4) the finding regarding substantial evidence requires medical reasoning of solid value. No party filed an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied.

  The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence in the reports of Dr. Schames and Dr. Pietruszka supporting the dental injury, contrary to the WCJ's finding based solely on lack of testimony.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11087603 · 2026-06-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 12, 2025 Findings of Fact, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her low back and left shoulder while employed as a caregiver, Occupational Group Number 340, on August 16, 2017. The WCJ also found compensable consequences in the form of an intraoperative stroke affecting the head, right upper extremity, gait, right lower extremity and facial weakness. The WCJ deferred the issue of whether applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her brain, throat (dysphasia)1, and psyche. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent total disability of 100%.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board relied on the AME Dr. Lawrence Richman's thorough examination, detailed reports, and deposition testimony, which were supported by substantial medical evidence, to find the applicant permanently and totally disabled. The vocational expert's opinions were found unpersuasive and not substantial evidence to rebut the AME's opinion or the applicant's credible testimony.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8887862 · 2026-04-28 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10Here, BBSI argues that applicant was not properly added to the ledger of employees and was never paid by BBSI and is therefore not an employee of BBSI. Yet, BBSI provides no evidence of an exclusion to rebut the presumption of employment. The test outlined in Riley, supra supports the finding that there is general employment on the part of BBSI. First, there is clearly a mutual agreement that BBSI was to be a co-employer with Long Beach for their employees and that BBSI retained the right to control, to some degree, the employees of Long Beach. Second, several of the documents authenticated and signed by the applicant were on BBSI letterhead, including the payroll election form, and "Employee Acknowledgement of Medical Provider Network." Thus, applicant had an understanding that BBSI was also his employer. These documents were dated December 17, 2012, prior to the date of injury.

  The Appeals Board found that applicant was employed by both Long Beach and BBSI based on evidence of mutual agreement, control, and documents on BBSI letterhead signed by applicant.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ12414993 · 2026-02-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The Appeals Board has exclusive jurisdiction over fees to be allowed or paid to applicants' attorneys. (Vierra v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Vierra) (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423, 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1128]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10840.) In calculating attorney fees, our basic statutory command is that the fees awarded must be "reasonable." (Lab. Code, § 4903, 4906(a), (d).) Pursuant to section 4906, in determining what constitutes a "reasonable" attorney fee, the Appeals Board must consider four factors: 1) the responsibility assumed by the attorney; 2) the care exercised by the attorney; 3) the time expended by the attorney; and 4) the results obtained by the attorney. (Lab. Code, § 4906(d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10844.)

  The split of attorney fees was reasonable considering the responsibility, care, time, and results obtained by the attorneys; the lien claimant failed to pursue temporary disability benefits despite medical support; the applicant's attorney failed to support allegations with record citations and did not call witnesses; the lien claimant lacked standing to challenge the award to the applicant's attorney.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16384093 · 2026-01-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.31. Applicant's Petition for Penalties, Costs, and Attorney fees based on the untimely issuance of authorization for right hip replacement surgery. 2. The statutory limit for temporary total disability benefits according to Labor Code section 4656(c). 3. The transition, at the time of termination of temporary disability benefits, to permanent disability benefits. (MOH, July 16, 2025, 2:23-3:2.) The WCJ issued an F&O on October 7, 2025 finding, in relevant part, that defendant had not violated sections 5814 and 5813 by delaying or denying medical treatment or temporary disability benefits. (F&), 10/7/2025, p. 3.) The WCJ noted:

  The defendant had a reasonable legal basis to deny surgery due to ongoing litigation and a genuine dispute over medical necessity, so no bad faith or unreasonable delay was found to justify penalties or sanctions.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ19757339 · 2025-10-07 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on March 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that pursuant to AD Rule 10205.6(b), a strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel must be made via first class mail, absent agreement of the parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10205.6(b).) The WCJ found that WCAB Rule 10625(b)(2), does not apply to permit electronic service of a QME strike. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)(2).)

  The Board found that Labor Code section 4062.2 requires only timely notification of opposing counsel to exercise a QME strike, not formal service by mail or electronic service rules.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18961005 · 2025-09-23 · San Bernadino District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8However, the record does not reflect whether the WCJ initially determined that applicant met her burden of establishing the employment presumption, and, if so, whether defendant rebutted the employment presumption under either the Business and Professions Code section 7451 (Proposition 22) test or the section 2775 ABC test.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ may have misapplied the burden of proof and the substantive provisions of Business and Professions Code section 7451, requiring further review.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ9060523 · 2025-09-22 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12The orthopedic QME, Dr. Donald Kim in his report dated 10/04/2022, declared the applicant MMI on 08/25/2022, the date of her last evaluation. (Exhibit #8, page 11) Dr. Kim provided this date after he reviewed records and evaluated the applicant numerous times. Dr. Kim's report was more substantial medical evidence than PTP, Dr. Brent Prately's report dated 01/29/2014. (Exhibit #A) Dr. Kim reviewed several reports, including the rheumatology and psychology reports. Dr. Prately did not appear to review any report after 01/29/2014, the date of his last report. Dr. Pratley did not address the applicant's increased symptoms as documented in QME, Dr. Kim's reports, dated 05/29/2018 and dated 08/29/2022. (Exhibits J4, page 1-2 and #J6, page 1-2). Her orthopedic injuries were complicated by her fibromyalgia. Dr. Kim's report was found to be substantial medical evidence and more persuasive on the issue of MMI status.

  WCJ relied on QME Dr. Kim's reports, which reviewed entire medical record and found applicant temporarily disabled through 08/25/2022; Dr. Kim's opinion more substantial than PTP Dr. Pratley's earlier report.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ1058134 · 2025-09-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the June 10, 2025 F&O and substitute a new Finding of Fact that defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the statute of limitations and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  Defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the statute of limitations because there was no evidence of notice of benefits to applicant, and the employer did not provide statutory notice, triggering the claims administrator's duty to notify.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ12226694 · 2024-06-17Penalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.91. In the applicant (ADJ12226694), it appears that Lance Garrett signed a petition for reconsideration, which was verified by Susan Garrett, that appears to have been filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or was an action that appears to be indisputably without merit.

  The petitions for reconsideration were filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings or with improper motive, or were indisputably without merit, warranting sanctions and costs.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ12226694 · 2024-06-17Penalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8While it is true that an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) is a final order, and thus subject to reconsideration, one may only file for reconsideration in good faith. Every issue raised in the Petitions for Reconsideration were issues set for trial. No reasonable explanation exists for filing a petition for reconsideration of an issue set for trial on the morning of trial. Such conduct defies logic. It appears that the Petitions for Reconsideration in these matters were filed as subterfuge, and that the true motive was to achieve a delay in the trial. This appears particularly true, given the overall pattern of conduct in that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed at least eight other petitions for reconsideration within this same time frame, all of which were filed to delay trial settings. (See Ledezma, supra.)

  The petitions for reconsideration were filed solely to delay trial proceedings, were without merit, and constituted bad-faith conduct warranting sanctions and costs.

  Official decision · page 8 →

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.

• HINDEN & BRESLAVSKY
• HINDEN & BRESLAVSKY, APC
• Hinden & Breslavsky
• HINDEN BRESLAVSKY
• Hinden & Breslavsky, APC
• Hinden Breslavsky
• Hinden Breslavsky Gonzalez Law
• HINDEN BRESLAVSKY LAW FIRM
• HINDEN & BRESLAVSKY, APLC
• Hinden and Breslavsky

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.