California WCABLaw firm
Koszdin, Fields & Sherry
Koszdin, Fields & Sherry is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Apportionment (1), Psyche AOE/COE (1) and Permanent total disability (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Marina del Rey.
- Decisions
- 8
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 2
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 8 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.
Decisions
Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.
- ADJ8102669 · 2025-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11Based on the foregoing, we concur with the WCJ's determination that Drs. Hirsch and Fink have identified multiple preexisting nonindustrial factors as causative of applicant's current permanent disability. However, because neither the regular physician nor the QME offers an explanation of how they identified the extent to which each of those factors contributed to present permanent disability, expressed as an approximate percentage, the apportionment analysis is incomplete and cannot be adopted. (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621; Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 647 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647] [Appeals Board may not rely on an apportionment opinion expressed as a mere legal conclusion].)
The WCAB found that the apportionment analysis by Drs. Hirsch and Fink was incomplete and lacked explanation on how percentages were assigned, thus not substantial evidence to support apportionment.
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ14800698 · 2024-10-04 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Based on our review of the record in this matter, we do not agree with the WCJ's analysis
The WCJ denied the claim based on credibility and a finding that the diagnosis was not a psychiatric category, but the WCAB found the WCJ improperly substituted her own opinion for that of the QME and failed to analyze the substantiality of the QME's opinion. The WCAB rejected the WCJ's credibility determination and remanded for a new trial.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ555322 · 2023-01-23 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The WCJ found that Applicant was entitled to a retroactive increase to his temporary disability indemnity and the payment of this retroactive increase should be paid pursuant to Labor Code Section 4661.5. The last date of injury at issue is 1997. Defendant's first argument disputes the method of calculating that retroactive rate contending that Labor Code Section 4453 (c) (1) should be utilized rather than the section relied upon by the WCJ in her decision, Section 4453 (c) (4) and (d). To be clear, there was no evidence whatsoever presented at trial as to how Applicant's previous temporary disability was calculated. The only issue presented at trial was whether or not Applicant was entitled to an increased temporary disability rate pursuant to Labor Code Section 4661.51 and the Hofmeister decision.
The WCJ found the method of calculating the retroactive increase in temporary disability payments using Labor Code Section 4453(c)(4) and (d) was reasonable and fair based on credible and unrebutted testimony, and that the wage increases were scheduled and reasonably anticipated at the time of injury.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ8153160 · 2021-02-25 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3This matter came before the undersigned for trial regarding the applicant's Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability. Ultimately, the undersigned issued Findings & Award dated December 10, 2020. Therein, the applicant's Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability was granted, and a finding was made that the applicant's injuries caused permanent total disability of 100%.
The applicant was found to be 100% permanently totally disabled based on credible testimony, medical evaluations including psychiatric AME Dr. Nathan, and unrebutted vocational expert opinion that the applicant is not able to sustain gainful employment or compete in the open labor market.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ21267547 · 2026-06-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On March 23, 2026, defendant timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration. On April 15, 2026, the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation (Report), recommending that we deny the Petition for Reconsideration. The WCJ did not set a hearing to address whether the Compromise & Release (C&R) should be set aside. On April 29, 2026, the parties submitted an amended C&R. On May 4, 2026, the WCJ issued an amended OACR. Turning first to the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration, we note that as observed by the WCJ, there was no evidentiary record with respect to the allegations in the Petition for Reconsideration. Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.)
The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ erred by recommending denial without creating an evidentiary record and by issuing an amended order while the matter was pending before the Appeals Board, violating procedural rules.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14214237 · 2025-09-26 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal1 from the order taking the matter off calendar that issued on October 10, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The WCJ's analysis found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy, so removal was denied.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ15467076 · 2024-04-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The undersigned issued Findings and Orders and an Opinion on Decision on February 7, 2023, in favor of the Applicant on all issues, namely that (1) The defendant has failed to comply with the Stipulation & Order dated June 8, 2023 and (duplicate) Order dated June 9, 2023, (2) The applicant is entitled to penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and costs because the Stipulation and Order was not complied with, and (3) The defendant is not entitled to credit for TD payments allegedly made per County Code Section 6.20.070 and allegedly made prior to the dates of the Orders of June 8, 2023 and June 9, 2023. Thereafter, Defendants filed the instant Petition for Reconsideration on March 1, 2024.
The defendant failed to comply with the stipulation and order, did not prove good cause for delay, and improperly claimed credit after the order became final, justifying denial of reconsideration and imposition of penalties.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ13135376 · 2021-04-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal dated January 27, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
The petition for removal was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to its dismissal.
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.
- KOSZDIN, FIELDS & SHERRY
- KOSZDIN, FIELDS, SHERRY & KATZ
- KOSZDIN FIELDS SHERRY & KATZ
- KOSZDIN FIELDS LAW FIRM
- KOSZDIN FIELDS VAN NUYS
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.