Law Offices of James Yang

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Anaheim 9
• Pomona 7
• Long Beach 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.

• 10 for the applicant
• 6 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 17 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.

• ADJ20910758 · 2026-06-30 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7In this matter, applicant attempted to amend the date of injury to conform to the testimony provided by applicant which, as all parties seem to agree, directly refuted a period of employment prior to April 20, 2025 as initially plead. It is not clear from the record whether defendant objected to the motion, but the WCJ denied the request. We agree that the request was made at a late point in litigation after both parties had effectively rested and the exhibits had been agreed to and discussed. However, the motion should have been granted and the matter deferred for further discovery and a hearing on the merits.

  The WCJ erred in denying amendment of the pleadings to conform to testimony regarding employment dates; the proper procedure was to develop the record further. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to determine employment during the correct period.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ20106865 · 2026-05-18 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Not only does the letter not explicitly refer to objection, it does not contain any objection whatsoever. Applicant is entitled to retain the control of the QME process and did nothing to lose that control. Thus, defendant waived its right to an objection.

  Defendant's strike letter did not contain any objection to the QME panel specialty, so defendant waived its right to object; applicant was entitled to choose the specialty and chiropractic was appropriate.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ20938147 · 2026-04-30 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, defendant's notice of delay was served on May 23, 2025 within California on applicant by regular mail. (Exhibit A.) The parties were therefore required to wait until fifteen (15) days after May 23, 2025, or until the after 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2025 before requesting a panel. In their panel request, however, defendant indicated that the "date of request for comprehensive exam" was May 22, 2025. (Exhibit B, p. 3.) This is contrary to the facts of the case and contrary to the parties' stipulation to a May 23, 2025 "start date per Labor Code 4062.2." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH & SOE), February 2, 2026, p. 2.) We therefore conclude that considering defendant's usage of an incorrect date, defendant's QME panel request was invalid. Accordingly, the issuance of panel 7823574 is similarly invalid.

  Defendant's QME panel request was premature due to incorrect date usage, making the panel invalid and entitling applicant to a replacement chiropractic panel.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ21492524 · 2026-02-17 · Anaheim District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8However, based upon an inadequate record, we cannot determine whether good cause presently exists as to the validity of the subsequent panel requests by each party, as well as the finding and order by the WCJ for a replacement panel in orthopedic surgery (MOS), and thus we must return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  The WCJ found panel 7875837 was untimely requested and thus invalid, a finding not disputed by parties; however, the WCJ's findings on subsequent replacement requests lacked sufficient evidence and were rescinded, with the matter returned for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ19392643 · 2026-01-30 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Finding of Fact issued on October 23, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found that applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his low back, neck, left shoulder, left hand, and left wrist with additional parts of body deferred and jurisdiction reserved with the WCAB; the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is August 15, 2019; and compensation for applicant's injury is not barred by section 3600(a)(10).

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in limiting the date of injury to August 15, 2019, and in the application of the post-termination bar under section 3600(a)(10), warranting reconsideration and further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16251404 · 2025-09-05 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The dispute here is whether the WCJ erred in finding applicant was not required to answer psychologically related questions. For the reasons detailed below, we conclude that in this case, the WCJ did not err because an allegation of headaches does not constitute a waiver of medical privacy regarding psychiatric care history.

  The WCJ did not err because the applicant did not plead a psychiatric injury and thus did not waive her right to privacy regarding psychiatric history; defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal; discovery related to headaches may proceed separately.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ20508246 · 2025-09-02 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Thus, based upon the evidence presented, defendant's request was premature, in violation of section 4062.2(b), and invalid.

  Defendant's request for panel 7799274 was premature as it was made before 5:00 pm on April 3, 2025, violating Labor Code section 4062.2(b) and related regulations, rendering the panel invalid.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ18125440 · 2025-01-22 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our November 4, 2024 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration (O&O) wherein we granted reconsideration of a July 31, 2024 Findings and Order and reversed the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ's) finding that applicant's August 4, 2022 claim of injury to the neck, back, psyche, sleep, internal, left knee, bilateral shoulders, head and other body systems was barred by the going and coming rule, post termination defense per Labor Code1 section 3600(a)(10), and six-month rule for psyche claims under section 3208.3(d).

  Applicant was performing a service growing out of and incidental to employment by using his own vehicle for business development and marketing duties, including a minor deviation to pick up doughnuts for clients, which falls under exceptions to the going and coming rule.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18936354 · 2024-11-26 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order ("F&O") issued on September 17, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") concluded that defendant need not produce a video recording of applicant's injury prior to applicant's deposition. Applicant asserts that the WCJ erred because the video is a video of the alleged incident itself, not sub rosa surveillance, and is therefore properly discoverable prior to her deposition.

  The Appeals Board found that the video footage was not sub rosa surveillance but footage of the incident itself, which must be produced prior to deposition to avoid prejudice to the applicant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18125440 · 2024-11-04 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 31, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's claim for an August 4, 2022 injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the neck, back, psyche, sleep, internal, left knee, bilateral shoulders, head and other body systems while employed by defendant as a marketing director was barred by the going and coming rule, post termination defense per Labor Code1 section 3600(a)(10), and six-month bar to psyche claims under section 3208.3(d).

  Applicant was performing a service growing out of and incidental to his employment, using his own vehicle for business development and marketing duties, including delivering doughnuts to clients, which was a minor deviation and did not bar the claim under the going and coming rule.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18205051 · 2024-06-17 · Anaheim District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we conclude that the record supports the finding that applicant failed to comply with AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C).

  Applicant's proof of service did not show service of all required documents under AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C); thus, the QME panel was invalid.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15448122 · 2023-06-27 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.54. A chiropractic panel is not medically or otherwise inappropriate to address the disputed medical issues for this claim.

  The WCAB found that the party first requesting a QME panel has the legal right to designate the panel specialty and that chiropractic is a medically appropriate specialty for the disputed medical issues despite treatment limitations.

  Official decision · page 5 →

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 JAMES YANG
• Law Offices of James Yang
• LAW OFFICES OF JAMES YANG AND ASSOCIATES
• Law Offices of James Yang & Associates
• Law Office of James Yang
• LAW OFFICE OF JAMES YANG
• LAW OFFICES JAMES YANG

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.