California WCABLaw firm
Lagorio Law Group
Lagorio Law Group is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (2), AOE/COE (1) and Reopening / new and further disability (1). They were heard most often at Riverside, then San Diego. The firm it meets most often is Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin (2).
- Decisions
- 6
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 2
Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 5 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.
1 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
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 6 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.
- ADJ13831424 · 2022-12-19 · San Diego District OfficeSerious and willful misconductapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Compensation for an employer's serious and willful misconduct "is clearly separate and distinct from the ordinary compensation benefits provided for under Section 3700" of the Labor Code and a compromise and release of these normal benefits cannot defeat and does not settle the claim for serious and willful misconduct benefits. (Rodgers v. Real Prop. Mgmt. Co. (1984) 49 Cal.Comp.Cases 561, 564-565, quoting Ray v. IAC (Wolgamott) (1956) 146 Cal. App.2d 393 [21 Cal.Comp.Cases 327].) Here, the value of the settlement is roughly equivalent to the present value of the statutory death benefit allowable to one total dependent. There is no evidence of consideration paid in exchange for settling a claim for increased benefits contemplated by sections 4553 and 4702. (Lab. Code, § 4553, 4702.) The insurer assumed liability for compensation and thus stepped into the shoes of the employer with respect to settling the statutory death benefit. (Lab. Code, § 3753, et seq.) The insurer does not cover S&W claims (MOH/SOE, August 18, 2022, trial, p. 11; see also Ins. Code, § 11661) and the only parties to the C&R were applicant and the insurer. Thus, while the employer may rely on the insurer to settle the death benefit, the employer remains personally liable for any potential S&W claim.
The Compromise and Release did not settle the claim for serious and willful misconduct benefits, which are separate and distinct from ordinary compensation benefits. The employer remains personally liable for any potential serious and willful claim despite the settlement of the death benefit with the insurer.
Official decision · page 9 → - ADJ12531807 · 2022-08-12 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Here, as noted above, the WCJ found that applicant sustained an injury to his respiratory system. (Finding #1, Findings p. 1.) In her May 20, 2019 treatment report Shubha Kerkar, M.D., diagnosed applicant as having, "1) Disseminated coccidioidomycosis [and] 2) Subcutaneous coccidioidomycosis." (Joint Exh. 1, pp. 72 § 73, review of medical records.) Subsequently, in several treatment reports, during the period from June 18, 2019, through December 19, 2019, Bachir Younes, M.D., diagnosed, "1) Cutaneous coccidioidomycosis 2) Disseminated coccidioidomycosis... [and] 6) skin lesions." (Joint Exh. 1, pp. 73 § 74 to 93 § 94.) Both doctors diagnosed disseminated coccidioidomycosis (infection in tissues other than the lungs) and subcutaneous/cutaneous coccidioidomycosis (on or under the skin) but neither doctor indicated that applicant had Valley Fever (infection in the lungs).The diagnoses made by Dr. Kerkar and Dr. Younes appear to differ from Dr. Gupta's diagnoses of Valley Fever as well as disseminated coccidioidomycosis. As a result, we are unable to determine whether the evidence indicates that applicant sustained a cutaneous injury, a respiratory injury, or both.
Dr. Gupta's reports do not constitute substantial evidence to support the finding of respiratory injury AOE/COE due to inconsistencies in the medical history and diagnoses by other physicians indicating cutaneous, not respiratory, Valley Fever.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ11428144 · 2021-04-09 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The QME Report of Donald Kim, M.D., is Substantial Medical Evidence on the Issue of Permanent Disability:
The Board found Dr. Kim's QME report to be substantial medical evidence supporting the permanent disability rating and future medical care, as it was reasonable, credible, and consistent with applicant's testimony, while the opposing PTP report was less persuasive.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ12232315 · 2026-03-16 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on December 23, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The petition for removal was dismissed because the issue became moot after the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar for possible settlement.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12933884 · 2021-04-06 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
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.
- Lagorio Law Group
- LAGORIO LAW GROUP
- LAGORIO LAW GROUP, APC
- LAGORIO LAW
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.