California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Kirk & Myers

Law Offices of Kirk & Myers is named in 18 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (4), Contribution / subrogation (1) and Psyche AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Van Nuys.

Decisions: 18
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 7

What they litigate

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

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

9 decisions across the groups shown

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

Los Angeles 6
Van Nuys 6
Marina del Rey 2
Bakersfield 1
Marina del Ray 1
Marna del Rey 1
San Francisco 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.

11 for the defense
5 for the applicant
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.

ADJ8471459 · 2024-12-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In order to further study the factual and legal issues in this case, we granted applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of two concurrently issued Findings of Fact and Orders issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 18, 2022. In a Findings of Fact and Orders issued in case ADJ8471459, it was found that while employed on November 19, 2011 as a kitchen helper, applicant did not sustain industrial injury in the form of a stroke. In a Findings of Fact and Orders issued in case ADJ10571336, it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending November 19, 2011, applicant did not sustain industrial injury in the form of a stroke. An order that applicant take nothing by way of his workers' compensation claim was issued in each case.
The WCJ and WCAB found the applicant did not meet the burden of proof to establish that the stroke was industrial in nature, based on credible defense witness testimony, medical expert reports, and lack of evidence of delay in medical treatment or continuous trauma.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3613146 · 2024-10-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5WCJ carefully explained why he found the conclusions of qualified medical evaluator Edward
The Appeals Board found the medical opinion of Dr. Edward O'Neill more persuasive and better reasoned than that of Dr. James Padova, rejecting the claim for industrial injury to the immune system and related conditions.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ11698784 · 2024-10-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7On February 3, 2022, the WCA issued his Findings and Order in which he found there was personal jurisdiction over defendant NBB in California for applicant's claim, and that the insurance policy issued to NBB by LMIC covered applicant. He ordered LMIC to provide an appropriate legal defense to NBB by LMIC in the claim filed by applicant in California with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.
The Appeals Board found that personal jurisdiction was properly established over the New Britain Bees in California and that the Liberty Mutual insurance policy covered the applicant's claim under the terms of the policy and applicable law.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ578425 · 2023-06-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.17Based upon applicant's credible testimony and the medical report(s) of PQME Michael Levey, M.D., dated 6/24/2020, which are the better reasoned and more persuasive, it is found that applicant did not sustain injury to his head, heart, cardiovascular system, neurological, aggravation of diabetes and hypertension, and psyche arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period 8/11/1997 to and including 6/2/2006.
Based on the credible testimony and the medical report of PQME Michael Levey, the applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment during the period 8/11/1997 to 6/2/2006.
Official decision · page 17 →
ADJ805478 · 2022-10-21 · Marna del Rey District OfficeContribution / subrogationdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.13Therefore, the Arbitrator found that Arrowood has no right to seek contribution/reimbursement for any benefits Arrowood paid after the approval of the two Compromise and Release Agreements against Wausau/Liberty Mutual and Travelers.
The Arbitrator found that Arrowood had no right to seek contribution/reimbursement for benefits paid after the approval of the Compromise and Release Agreements because joint and several liability ended and Arrowood was only responsible for their pro-rata share or credit for amounts paid.
Official decision · page 13 →
ADJ9254033 · 2022-07-08 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3There were multiple issues submitted for decision but the most controversial was whether the judge would find all or part of the psychiatric impairment compensable as a direct injury arising from the event on 6/3/13, or alternatively compensable under the violent act exception of Labor Code 4660.1. The judge ultimately ruled in Applicant's favor and determined the psychiatric injury was fully compensable leading to a combined permanent disability Award of 89%.
The judge found the psychiatric injury fully compensable under the violent act exception of Labor Code 4660.1(c) based on credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from Dr. Levander diagnosing PTSD from a direct injury and traumatic event.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11340244 · 2022-02-25 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 7, 2019, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain a compensable psychiatric injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE); and the WCJ Ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her injury claim.
The WCJ found applicant not credible and that the claimed psychiatric injury was not caused by actual events of employment but rather lawful, nondiscriminatory good faith personnel actions; the WCAB affirmed this finding.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3065118 · 2021-10-26 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Amended Joint Findings and Award of September 2, 2021, wherein it was found that, while employed as a cabinet maker on November 12, 1998 (ADJ3065118), applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, mid spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, wrists and psyche, but not in the forms of sleep disorder, sexual dysfunction, hypertension, or gastroesophageal reflux disease, causing compensable permanent disability of 65% and the need for further medical treatment. Additionally, it was found that while employed as a cabinet maker during a cumulative period ending September 12, 2000 (ADJ3683536), applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, and psyche, causing compensable permanent disability of 23% and the need for further medical treatment.
The WCJ relied on 2017 medical reports showing significant permanent disability and need for ongoing treatment, and applicant failed to present credible evidence to overturn these findings after over 20 years.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ4583618 · 2026-01-20 · Marina del Ray District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Removal 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).)
The WCAB applied the removal standard for interlocutory issues and found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12590679 · 2024-05-06 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ's February 23, 2024, Order Dismissing Case is a final Order. The WCJ may issue a Notice of Intention (NIT) for any proper purpose. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (a).) A proper purpose includes, but is not limited to, (1) Allowing, disallowing or dismissing a lien; (2) Granting, denying or dismissing a petition; (3) Sanctioning a party; (4) Submitting the matter on the record; or (5) Dismissing an application. (Id.) Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10832 (c), if an objection is filed within the time provided, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, in its discretion may: (1) Sustain the objection; (2) Issue an order consistent with the notice of intention together with an opinion on decision; or set the matter for hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (c).) Unless a case is activated for hearing within one year after filing of the Application for Adjudication of Claim or the entry of an order taking off calendar, the case may be dismissed after notice and opportunity to be heard. Such dismissals may be entered at the request of an interested party or upon the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's own motion for lack of prosecution. (Cal. Code Regs. tit.
The WCJ improperly issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss after the case was activated for hearing, making the dismissal order void ab initio.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ1334367 · 2024-01-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the Supplemental Petition1 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 Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to reject them, concluding the commutation was in applicant's best interest given her financial situation and housing needs.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8855250 · 2022-06-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration. The Appeals Board dismissed applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of a December 20, 2021 decision by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) because the decision was untimely.
The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely, as timeliness depends on receipt by the district office, not mailing date, and the Board lacks authority to consider untimely petitions.
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 KIRK & MYERS
Law Offices of Kirk & Myers
KIRK & MYERS
Kirk & Myers
KIRK AND MYERS

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 →

Law Offices of Kirk & Myers

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

What they litigate

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

How the appealed decisions came out

11 for the defense

5 for the applicant

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.

ADJ8471459 · 2024-12-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In order to further study the factual and legal issues in this case, we granted applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of two concurrently issued Findings of Fact and Orders issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 18, 2022. In a Findings of Fact and Orders issued in case ADJ8471459, it was found that while employed on November 19, 2011 as a kitchen helper, applicant did not sustain industrial injury in the form of a stroke. In a Findings of Fact and Orders issued in case ADJ10571336, it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending November 19, 2011, applicant did not sustain industrial injury in the form of a stroke. An order that applicant take nothing by way of his workers' compensation claim was issued in each case.

The WCJ and WCAB found the applicant did not meet the burden of proof to establish that the stroke was industrial in nature, based on credible defense witness testimony, medical expert reports, and lack of evidence of delay in medical treatment or continuous trauma.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3613146 · 2024-10-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5WCJ carefully explained why he found the conclusions of qualified medical evaluator Edward

The Appeals Board found the medical opinion of Dr. Edward O'Neill more persuasive and better reasoned than that of Dr. James Padova, rejecting the claim for industrial injury to the immune system and related conditions.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ11698784 · 2024-10-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7On February 3, 2022, the WCA issued his Findings and Order in which he found there was personal jurisdiction over defendant NBB in California for applicant's claim, and that the insurance policy issued to NBB by LMIC covered applicant. He ordered LMIC to provide an appropriate legal defense to NBB by LMIC in the claim filed by applicant in California with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

The Appeals Board found that personal jurisdiction was properly established over the New Britain Bees in California and that the Liberty Mutual insurance policy covered the applicant's claim under the terms of the policy and applicable law.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ578425 · 2023-06-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.17Based upon applicant's credible testimony and the medical report(s) of PQME Michael Levey, M.D., dated 6/24/2020, which are the better reasoned and more persuasive, it is found that applicant did not sustain injury to his head, heart, cardiovascular system, neurological, aggravation of diabetes and hypertension, and psyche arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period 8/11/1997 to and including 6/2/2006.

Based on the credible testimony and the medical report of PQME Michael Levey, the applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment during the period 8/11/1997 to 6/2/2006.

Official decision · page 17 →

ADJ805478 · 2022-10-21 · Marna del Rey District OfficeContribution / subrogationdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.13Therefore, the Arbitrator found that Arrowood has no right to seek contribution/reimbursement for any benefits Arrowood paid after the approval of the two Compromise and Release Agreements against Wausau/Liberty Mutual and Travelers.

The Arbitrator found that Arrowood had no right to seek contribution/reimbursement for benefits paid after the approval of the Compromise and Release Agreements because joint and several liability ended and Arrowood was only responsible for their pro-rata share or credit for amounts paid.

Official decision · page 13 →

ADJ9254033 · 2022-07-08 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3There were multiple issues submitted for decision but the most controversial was whether the judge would find all or part of the psychiatric impairment compensable as a direct injury arising from the event on 6/3/13, or alternatively compensable under the violent act exception of Labor Code 4660.1. The judge ultimately ruled in Applicant's favor and determined the psychiatric injury was fully compensable leading to a combined permanent disability Award of 89%.

The judge found the psychiatric injury fully compensable under the violent act exception of Labor Code 4660.1(c) based on credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from Dr. Levander diagnosing PTSD from a direct injury and traumatic event.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11340244 · 2022-02-25 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 7, 2019, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain a compensable psychiatric injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE); and the WCJ Ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her injury claim.

The WCJ found applicant not credible and that the claimed psychiatric injury was not caused by actual events of employment but rather lawful, nondiscriminatory good faith personnel actions; the WCAB affirmed this finding.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3065118 · 2021-10-26 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Amended Joint Findings and Award of September 2, 2021, wherein it was found that, while employed as a cabinet maker on November 12, 1998 (ADJ3065118), applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, mid spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, wrists and psyche, but not in the forms of sleep disorder, sexual dysfunction, hypertension, or gastroesophageal reflux disease, causing compensable permanent disability of 65% and the need for further medical treatment. Additionally, it was found that while employed as a cabinet maker during a cumulative period ending September 12, 2000 (ADJ3683536), applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, and psyche, causing compensable permanent disability of 23% and the need for further medical treatment.

The WCJ relied on 2017 medical reports showing significant permanent disability and need for ongoing treatment, and applicant failed to present credible evidence to overturn these findings after over 20 years.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ4583618 · 2026-01-20 · Marina del Ray District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Removal 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).)

The WCAB applied the removal standard for interlocutory issues and found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12590679 · 2024-05-06 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ's February 23, 2024, Order Dismissing Case is a final Order. The WCJ may issue a Notice of Intention (NIT) for any proper purpose. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (a).) A proper purpose includes, but is not limited to, (1) Allowing, disallowing or dismissing a lien; (2) Granting, denying or dismissing a petition; (3) Sanctioning a party; (4) Submitting the matter on the record; or (5) Dismissing an application. (Id.) Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10832 (c), if an objection is filed within the time provided, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, in its discretion may: (1) Sustain the objection; (2) Issue an order consistent with the notice of intention together with an opinion on decision; or set the matter for hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (c).) Unless a case is activated for hearing within one year after filing of the Application for Adjudication of Claim or the entry of an order taking off calendar, the case may be dismissed after notice and opportunity to be heard. Such dismissals may be entered at the request of an interested party or upon the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's own motion for lack of prosecution. (Cal. Code Regs. tit.

The WCJ improperly issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss after the case was activated for hearing, making the dismissal order void ab initio.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ1334367 · 2024-01-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the Supplemental Petition1 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 Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to reject them, concluding the commutation was in applicant's best interest given her financial situation and housing needs.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8855250 · 2022-06-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration. The Appeals Board dismissed applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of a December 20, 2021 decision by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) because the decision was untimely.

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely, as timeliness depends on receipt by the district office, not mailing date, and the Board lacks authority to consider untimely petitions.

Official decision · page 1 →