California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Jie Ci Ding, INC.

Law Offices of Jie Ci Ding, INC. is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to Liens (2) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Pomona, then Anaheim.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 4

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Pomona 4
Anaheim 1
Long Beach 1
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.

6 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ11626597 · 2023-12-29 · Long Beach District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The issue here is the lien claim filed by Optimal Health Institute against Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for medical services provided by Dr. Shen, specialty unknown, and Dr. Kan, a chiropractor. The Findings and Order denying recovery on this lien claim was served on October 12, 2023, and Optimal Health Institute has now filed a timely verified Petition for Reconsideration.
Optimal Health Institute failed to meet its burden of proof to show a legal or factual basis for treatment outside the MPN, and no evidence of denial of treatment for claimed body parts was found.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10767199 · 2022-04-18 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4If the employee disputes a medical determination made by the primary treating physician, including a determination that the employee should be released from care, the dispute shall be resolved under the applicable procedures set forth at Labor Code sections 4060, 4061 4062, 4600.5, 4616.3, or 4616.4.... (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(b)(3).) Here, the record contains no evidence that at any time applicant objected to Dr. Berg's determination that he needed no more medical treatment and was released from care. In the C&R applicant stipulated that he was working his usual and customary duties up to the termination of his employment and the trial record does not include any evidence that he sought medical treatment until he was seen by Dr. Shen on January 18, 2017. Absent a timely objection to Dr. Berg's determination that applicant needed no further medical treatment, and absent any evidence that applicant complied with the Labor Code sections referred to in AD rule 9785(b)(3), quoted above, applicant is not entitled to medical treatment for the August 7, 2008 injury. We also note that since applicant did not seek treatment for approximately eight years after his last treatment by Dr. Berg, there is no evidence that the treatment provided by Lien Claimant was actually for symptoms that were a result of the 2008 injury. Accordingly, we will deny reconsideration.
No timely objection to Dr. Berg's release from care; no evidence applicant complied with Labor Code sections for dispute; no entitlement to further treatment for 2008 injury.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ7560069 · 2025-10-31 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on August 26, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19131469 · 2025-09-02 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4A lien claimant is not an aggrieved party for the purpose of filing a petition for reconsideration of an OACR, if the C&R, between the employer/carrier and the employee, does not include a final resolution of the lien claim. (The Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Williams) (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d [42 Cal.Comp.Cases 745]; Oliver and Winston Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gregg) (1983) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 814 (writ denied).)
Lien claimant was not aggrieved by the OACR because the C&R did not include a final resolution of the lien claim, and the lien claimant was not a party to the C&R. The lien is for medical treatment payment under section 4903(b) and is payable by defendants directly in separate proceedings. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10992640 · 2023-07-05 · Pomona 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, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) 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 found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10275231 · 2022-10-24 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION Parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805] (Rucker).) A fair hearing is "one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant...." (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the California Supreme Court in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, "the commission...must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, - in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process of law." (Id. at p. 577.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp.
The WCJ's decision lacked a proper evidentiary record and did not meet due process requirements, so the Board rescinded the order and returned the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ9020239 · 2022-07-05 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Based on our independent review of the record in this matter, we are not persuaded that this case presents extraordinary circumstances justifying removal. Specifically, because the WCJ's MOH did not actually approve a lien settlement, no effective, i.e., binding, settlement exists that would subject lien claimant to significant prejudice or irreparable harm absent removal. The only effect of the MOH was to take the matter off calendar. Lien claimant need only file a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to a lien trial so that it may obtain due process and present evidence on its claim(s). (San Bernardino Community Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986] ["The essence of due process is simply notice and the opportunity to be heard."].)
No binding settlement existed and no significant prejudice or irreparable harm resulted from the MOH; lien claimant can file a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed.
Official decision · page 3 →

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 JIE CI DING, INC.
LAW OFFICES OF JIE CI DING
Law Offices of Jie Ci Ding, Inc.

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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ11626597 · 2023-12-29 · Long Beach District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The issue here is the lien claim filed by Optimal Health Institute against Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for medical services provided by Dr. Shen, specialty unknown, and Dr. Kan, a chiropractor. The Findings and Order denying recovery on this lien claim was served on October 12, 2023, and Optimal Health Institute has now filed a timely verified Petition for Reconsideration.

Optimal Health Institute failed to meet its burden of proof to show a legal or factual basis for treatment outside the MPN, and no evidence of denial of treatment for claimed body parts was found.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10767199 · 2022-04-18 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4If the employee disputes a medical determination made by the primary treating physician, including a determination that the employee should be released from care, the dispute shall be resolved under the applicable procedures set forth at Labor Code sections 4060, 4061 4062, 4600.5, 4616.3, or 4616.4.... (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(b)(3).) Here, the record contains no evidence that at any time applicant objected to Dr. Berg's determination that he needed no more medical treatment and was released from care. In the C&R applicant stipulated that he was working his usual and customary duties up to the termination of his employment and the trial record does not include any evidence that he sought medical treatment until he was seen by Dr. Shen on January 18, 2017. Absent a timely objection to Dr. Berg's determination that applicant needed no further medical treatment, and absent any evidence that applicant complied with the Labor Code sections referred to in AD rule 9785(b)(3), quoted above, applicant is not entitled to medical treatment for the August 7, 2008 injury. We also note that since applicant did not seek treatment for approximately eight years after his last treatment by Dr. Berg, there is no evidence that the treatment provided by Lien Claimant was actually for symptoms that were a result of the 2008 injury. Accordingly, we will deny reconsideration.

No timely objection to Dr. Berg's release from care; no evidence applicant complied with Labor Code sections for dispute; no entitlement to further treatment for 2008 injury.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ7560069 · 2025-10-31 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on August 26, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19131469 · 2025-09-02 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4A lien claimant is not an aggrieved party for the purpose of filing a petition for reconsideration of an OACR, if the C&R, between the employer/carrier and the employee, does not include a final resolution of the lien claim. (The Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Williams) (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d [42 Cal.Comp.Cases 745]; Oliver and Winston Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gregg) (1983) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 814 (writ denied).)

Lien claimant was not aggrieved by the OACR because the C&R did not include a final resolution of the lien claim, and the lien claimant was not a party to the C&R. The lien is for medical treatment payment under section 4903(b) and is payable by defendants directly in separate proceedings. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10992640 · 2023-07-05 · Pomona 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, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) 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 found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10275231 · 2022-10-24 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION Parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805] (Rucker).) A fair hearing is "one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant...." (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the California Supreme Court in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, "the commission...must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, - in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process of law." (Id. at p. 577.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp.

The WCJ's decision lacked a proper evidentiary record and did not meet due process requirements, so the Board rescinded the order and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ9020239 · 2022-07-05 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Based on our independent review of the record in this matter, we are not persuaded that this case presents extraordinary circumstances justifying removal. Specifically, because the WCJ's MOH did not actually approve a lien settlement, no effective, i.e., binding, settlement exists that would subject lien claimant to significant prejudice or irreparable harm absent removal. The only effect of the MOH was to take the matter off calendar. Lien claimant need only file a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to a lien trial so that it may obtain due process and present evidence on its claim(s). (San Bernardino Community Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986] ["The essence of due process is simply notice and the opportunity to be heard."].)

No binding settlement existed and no significant prejudice or irreparable harm resulted from the MOH; lien claimant can file a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed.

Official decision · page 3 →