Law Office of Dennis R. Fusi

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue3
• AOE/COE1
• Substantial evidence / credibility1
• Statute of limitations1

Where they appear

• Long Beach 5
• Anaheim 2
• Los Angeles 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.

• 5 for the defense
• 3 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 8 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.

• ADJ8481630 · 2023-07-14 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

  The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight, and the evidence supported that applicant was an employee of defendant CGL, Inc. at the time of injury, not an independent contractor.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8698732 · 2022-04-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2As to the statute of limitations claims raised by both landlord Zee Shore and tenant/petitioner S & P, I determined that the statute of limitations defense was valid as to landlord Zee Shore due to their apparent lack of knowledge of the injury before an application was filed against them. By contrast, I found the same statute of limitations defense unmeritorious as to tenant S & P based on S & P's contemporaneous knowledge the accident and a consequent breach of S & P's "Reynolds" duty to apprise the applicant of his workers compensation rights against S & P. (Reynolds v. WCAB, 39 CCC 768.)

  The WCJ found the statute of limitations defense valid as to landlord Zee Shore due to lack of knowledge but invalid as to tenant S & P due to contemporaneous knowledge and breach of duty to notify applicant of rights, which the panel upheld.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11714452 · 2022-03-21 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3consideration appears to be whether the alleged special employer exercises control over the details of [an employee's] work. Such control strongly supports the inference that a special employment exists.' (McFarland v. Voorheis-Trindle Co., supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 705; Oxford v. Signal Oil & Gas Co., supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at p. 408; Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at p. 922.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we agree that both Baron HR and Source Logistics had the right to control applicant and exercised that control and that they both benefited from the arrangement. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)

  The WCJ's findings that both Baron HR and Source Logistics exercised control over the applicant and benefited from the employment arrangement were given great weight and supported by credible testimony and evidence, establishing a joint general and special employment relationship.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ16272432 · 2024-02-23 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on February 7, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15138143 · 2022-06-03 · Long Beach 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 Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7264254 · 2021-11-02 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions,

  The WCJ's August 17, 2021 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders is an intermediate procedural order, not a final decision, so the petition for reconsideration is dismissed. Removal is denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is an adequate remedy.

  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.

• LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS R. FUSI & ASSOCIATES
• LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS FUSI & ASSOCIATES
• LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS R. FUSI
• Law Office of Dennis R. Fusi
• DENNIS R. FUSI & ASSOCIATES
• Dennis R. Fusi Law Offices
• LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS FUSI

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.