California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Lower Kesner

Law Offices of Lower Kesner is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Permanent disability rating (2) and Psyche AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Glauber Berenson Vego (3).

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 5

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 6 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.

Who they face

11 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Van Nuys 6
Anaheim 2
Los Angeles 2
Marina del Rey 1
Santa Ana 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 applicant
6 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

ADJ401657 · 2025-10-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Here, AME Dr. Siebold issued eight reports and was deposed on three occasions. Dr. Siebold concluded that applicant sustained cumulative injury to his cervical spine, right shoulder, right upper extremity, lumbar spine, left knee, and right knee. While the WCJ may have had some qualms about the sufficiency of the reporting with respect to more complex issues such as applicant's level of permanent disability and causation of permanent disability and apportionment, we believe that Dr. Siebold's reporting more than meets the standard articulated in Clark, supra, as to causation of injury. Therefore, we will rescind the F&O and substitute a new F&O that finds that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his cervical spine, right shoulder, right upper extremity, lumbar spine, left knee, and right knee.
The WCAB found that the prior stipulations were not enforceable because the WCJ did not make findings or orders approving them, implicitly rejecting the stipulations. The AME Dr. Siebold's reports were found to constitute substantial evidence supporting cumulative injury to specified body parts during the employment period. The reports of Dr. Brourman were rejected as not substantial evidence due to inadequate history and incorrect legal standard application.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ13149806 · 2023-02-07 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Here, the WCJ determined that applicant's orthopedic disability should be added rather than combined with her cognitive dysfunction and sleep/arousal disability. (Formal Rating Instructions, dated October 21, 2022, p. 2; Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, dated December 20, 2022, at p. 3.) The WCJ based her decision on the recommendations of Stuart Silverman, M.D., the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) in rheumatology. (Opinion on Decision, dated November 21, 2022, at pp. 4-5.) Defendant contends Dr. Silverman offered only a conclusory statement in deposition that he "would add [orthopedic disability] to the rheumatological impairments," but otherwise failed to explain his reasoning in reaching this conclusion. (Petition for Reconsideration, dated December 9, 2022, at 3:22.)
The WCJ and panel found substantial medical evidence supporting the addition of orthopedic disability to cognitive dysfunction and sleep/arousal disability based on the AME Dr. Silverman's reasonably articulated medical basis and synergistic effect.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9682348 · 2023-01-17 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of the April 14, 2020 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the August 24, 2016 amendment to the application was barred by the statute of limitations. The applicant sought to amend the application to allege that he sustained a cumulative trauma rather than a specific injury.
The amended application alleging a cumulative trauma injury relates back to the original application because the medical evidence supports a cumulative trauma injury and the claim was accepted and benefits paid accordingly, so the statute of limitations does not bar the amendment.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7932563 · 2022-08-17 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of an order setting this matter for trial (Order) issued on the November 2, 2020 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The Order was issued following applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed on applicant's issues of penalties for failure to pay permanent disability (Lab. Code, § 4650(d)), and petition for sanctions and penalties for failure to pay temporary disability (penalties and sanctions issues).
The penalties and sanctions issues were not litigated or adjudicated at trial, thus not denied by operation of law under section 5815; the 5-year limitation of section 5804 does not bar these claims; removal was denied as no irreparable harm or severe prejudice would result.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ1635654 · 2022-06-08 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) in case number ADJ1635654 issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 2, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, shoulders, wrists, and hands; that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his low back; that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period from October 13, 2004, through October 11, 2006 (subject to the Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) 104 week limitation); and that the injury caused 47% permanent disability.
The WCJ found 47% permanent disability caused by the injury, which was not disturbed on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11290690 · 2022-05-16 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Codefendant questioned the date of injury, alleging that the latency period determines the date of injury. The WCJ ruled that there was no substantial medical evidence to find a latency period in this case and Oak River filed a Petition for Reconsideration of that issue on March 15, 2022.
The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to determine a specific latency period for the AML cancer, and the date of injury was set based on the last date of injurious exposure, June 18, 2017, with the cumulative trauma period from June 18, 2016 to June 18, 2017. The Petition for Reconsideration challenging this was denied.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11978261 · 2022-05-09 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 4, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that defendant's denial of applicant's injury claim was untimely under Labor Code section 5402, that defendant successfully rebutted the Labor Code section 5402(b) presumption of compensability, and that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, bilateral shoulders, bilateral elbows, lumbar spine, and left leg, while employed by defendant; the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his injury claim.
The WCAB found that the QME Dr. Gowey's well-reasoned medical opinion constituted substantial evidence that applicant sustained cumulative injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine, left shoulder, and left elbow, rejecting the pre-employment medical exam as insufficient evidence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10299790 · 2024-04-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's decision was not a final order determining substantive rights or a threshold issue, and the petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6785524 · 2023-07-19 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On May 26, 2023, we issued our "Opinion and Notice of Intention to Dismiss" (Opinion), wherein we allowed lien claimant Beverly Hills Pharmacy 15 days to file proof that it had timely filed its petition for reconsideration of a F&O issued on June 21, 2022 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In our Opinion, we gave notice to Beverly Hills Pharmacy that, unless it submitted proof of timely filing within the allotted 15 days, its petition for reconsideration would be dismissed.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because Beverly Hills Pharmacy failed to timely file it within the jurisdictional time limit, depriving the Appeals Board of authority to consider it.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14172431 · 2022-09-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
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, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7324853 · 2021-11-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, United States Fire Insurance Company (U.S. Fire), petitions for reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on September 27, 2019. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, sustained cumulative injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his neck, lumbar spine, knees, right elbow, right shoulder, and consisting of hypertension and a sleep disturbance while employed as a binder and collector by Interprint Printing Company from May 10, 2009, through March 31, 2010, and then by Pegasus from April 1, 2010 through May 18, 2010. The WCJ also found that applicant's injury caused temporary disability from May 18, 2010 through May 17, 2012, permanent partial disability of 50% and need of further medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury. The WCJ awarded benefits against U.S. Fire and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers) jointly and severally.
The Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues presented in the petition filed by U.S. Fire.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9022814 · 2021-05-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's decision solely resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration.
The order appealed from was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary order, not a final order determining substantive rights or threshold issues; removal was not warranted as no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 2 →

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.

LOWER & KESNER
LOWER KESNER
LOWER & KESNER, LLP
LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT PURINTON LOWER & KESNER
Law Offices of Lower Kesner
LOWER AND KESNER
Lower & Kesner
Lower Kesner

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 Lower Kesner

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

6 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ401657 · 2025-10-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Here, AME Dr. Siebold issued eight reports and was deposed on three occasions. Dr. Siebold concluded that applicant sustained cumulative injury to his cervical spine, right shoulder, right upper extremity, lumbar spine, left knee, and right knee. While the WCJ may have had some qualms about the sufficiency of the reporting with respect to more complex issues such as applicant's level of permanent disability and causation of permanent disability and apportionment, we believe that Dr. Siebold's reporting more than meets the standard articulated in Clark, supra, as to causation of injury. Therefore, we will rescind the F&O and substitute a new F&O that finds that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his cervical spine, right shoulder, right upper extremity, lumbar spine, left knee, and right knee.

The WCAB found that the prior stipulations were not enforceable because the WCJ did not make findings or orders approving them, implicitly rejecting the stipulations. The AME Dr. Siebold's reports were found to constitute substantial evidence supporting cumulative injury to specified body parts during the employment period. The reports of Dr. Brourman were rejected as not substantial evidence due to inadequate history and incorrect legal standard application.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ13149806 · 2023-02-07 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Here, the WCJ determined that applicant's orthopedic disability should be added rather than combined with her cognitive dysfunction and sleep/arousal disability. (Formal Rating Instructions, dated October 21, 2022, p. 2; Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, dated December 20, 2022, at p. 3.) The WCJ based her decision on the recommendations of Stuart Silverman, M.D., the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) in rheumatology. (Opinion on Decision, dated November 21, 2022, at pp. 4-5.) Defendant contends Dr. Silverman offered only a conclusory statement in deposition that he "would add [orthopedic disability] to the rheumatological impairments," but otherwise failed to explain his reasoning in reaching this conclusion. (Petition for Reconsideration, dated December 9, 2022, at 3:22.)

The WCJ and panel found substantial medical evidence supporting the addition of orthopedic disability to cognitive dysfunction and sleep/arousal disability based on the AME Dr. Silverman's reasonably articulated medical basis and synergistic effect.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9682348 · 2023-01-17 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of the April 14, 2020 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the August 24, 2016 amendment to the application was barred by the statute of limitations. The applicant sought to amend the application to allege that he sustained a cumulative trauma rather than a specific injury.

The amended application alleging a cumulative trauma injury relates back to the original application because the medical evidence supports a cumulative trauma injury and the claim was accepted and benefits paid accordingly, so the statute of limitations does not bar the amendment.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7932563 · 2022-08-17 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of an order setting this matter for trial (Order) issued on the November 2, 2020 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The Order was issued following applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed on applicant's issues of penalties for failure to pay permanent disability (Lab. Code, § 4650(d)), and petition for sanctions and penalties for failure to pay temporary disability (penalties and sanctions issues).

The penalties and sanctions issues were not litigated or adjudicated at trial, thus not denied by operation of law under section 5815; the 5-year limitation of section 5804 does not bar these claims; removal was denied as no irreparable harm or severe prejudice would result.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ1635654 · 2022-06-08 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) in case number ADJ1635654 issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 2, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, shoulders, wrists, and hands; that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his low back; that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period from October 13, 2004, through October 11, 2006 (subject to the Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) 104 week limitation); and that the injury caused 47% permanent disability.

The WCJ found 47% permanent disability caused by the injury, which was not disturbed on reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11290690 · 2022-05-16 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Codefendant questioned the date of injury, alleging that the latency period determines the date of injury. The WCJ ruled that there was no substantial medical evidence to find a latency period in this case and Oak River filed a Petition for Reconsideration of that issue on March 15, 2022.

The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to determine a specific latency period for the AML cancer, and the date of injury was set based on the last date of injurious exposure, June 18, 2017, with the cumulative trauma period from June 18, 2016 to June 18, 2017. The Petition for Reconsideration challenging this was denied.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11978261 · 2022-05-09 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 4, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that defendant's denial of applicant's injury claim was untimely under Labor Code section 5402, that defendant successfully rebutted the Labor Code section 5402(b) presumption of compensability, and that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, bilateral shoulders, bilateral elbows, lumbar spine, and left leg, while employed by defendant; the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his injury claim.

The WCAB found that the QME Dr. Gowey's well-reasoned medical opinion constituted substantial evidence that applicant sustained cumulative injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine, left shoulder, and left elbow, rejecting the pre-employment medical exam as insufficient evidence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10299790 · 2024-04-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's decision was not a final order determining substantive rights or a threshold issue, and the petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6785524 · 2023-07-19 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On May 26, 2023, we issued our "Opinion and Notice of Intention to Dismiss" (Opinion), wherein we allowed lien claimant Beverly Hills Pharmacy 15 days to file proof that it had timely filed its petition for reconsideration of a F&O issued on June 21, 2022 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In our Opinion, we gave notice to Beverly Hills Pharmacy that, unless it submitted proof of timely filing within the allotted 15 days, its petition for reconsideration would be dismissed.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because Beverly Hills Pharmacy failed to timely file it within the jurisdictional time limit, depriving the Appeals Board of authority to consider it.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14172431 · 2022-09-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

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, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7324853 · 2021-11-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, United States Fire Insurance Company (U.S. Fire), petitions for reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on September 27, 2019. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, sustained cumulative injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his neck, lumbar spine, knees, right elbow, right shoulder, and consisting of hypertension and a sleep disturbance while employed as a binder and collector by Interprint Printing Company from May 10, 2009, through March 31, 2010, and then by Pegasus from April 1, 2010 through May 18, 2010. The WCJ also found that applicant's injury caused temporary disability from May 18, 2010 through May 17, 2012, permanent partial disability of 50% and need of further medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury. The WCJ awarded benefits against U.S. Fire and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers) jointly and severally.

The Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues presented in the petition filed by U.S. Fire.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9022814 · 2021-05-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's decision solely resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration.

The order appealed from was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary order, not a final order determining substantive rights or threshold issues; removal was not warranted as no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 2 →

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.

LOWER & KESNER

LOWER KESNER

LOWER & KESNER, LLP

LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT PURINTON LOWER & KESNER

Law Offices of Lower Kesner

LOWER AND KESNER

Lower & Kesner

Lower Kesner