California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Nguyen & Gribble, LLP

Law Offices of Nguyen & Gribble, LLP is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to Psyche AOE/COE (1) and Liens (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Riverside.

Decisions: 8
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 6

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

Los Angeles 2
Riverside 2
Oxnard 1
Pomona 1
Santa Ana 1
Van Nuys 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.

4 for the defense
2 for the applicant

Counted over 6 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.

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 →
ADJ16042609 · 2025-10-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the "Order Rejecting Applications for Adjudication of Claim" issued on July 26, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ rejected multiple applications for adjudication because applicant has been declared a vexatious litigant and is subject to a pre-filing order, and that applicant failed to seek permission to file the new applications pursuant to the pre-filing order.
The petitioner failed to comply with the vexatious litigant pre-filing order and did not obtain permission to file new applications, so removal was denied because substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was not shown and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14201895 · 2023-05-12 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Defendant alleges the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers and the evidence does not justify the findings of fact. Defendant based this on the belief that the undersigned did not review Defendant's trial brief and that the decision was inconsistent with applicable law. The cost petitioner does not specify on which basis it has filed the Petition for Reconsideration, but one could infer that they are alleging the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers when the undersigned excluded proffered exhibits. Cost Petitioner alleges the excluded exhibits were material to the determination of bad faith and that vacating the decision and submission is necessary to allow new evidence that was not available at the time of trial. Both parties failed to state facts that would support the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers or that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact.
The petitions for reconsideration were denied because the parties failed to show the WCJ acted without or in excess of powers or that the evidence did not justify the findings of fact. New arguments not raised at trial were rejected, and excluded evidence was found not material to bad faith determination.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11256912 · 2023-02-21 · Oxnard 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 no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15522831 · 2023-01-23 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Reconsideration has been sought with regard to the decision filed on November 4, 2022. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pending the issuance of a Decision after Reconsideration in the above case, all further correspondence, objections, motions, requests and communications relating to the petition shall be filed only with the Office of the Commissioners of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board at either its street address (455 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102), or its e-mail address (WCABgrantforstudy@dir.ca.gov). It is within the discretion of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to determine whether any document submitted for filing is accepted for filing (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10615(c) [eff. January 1, 2022]).
Reconsideration granted to allow further study of factual and legal issues and to issue a just and reasoned decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12884537 · 2022-04-27 · 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
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 NGUYEN & GRIBBLE, LLP
LAW OFFICES OF NGUYEN & GRIBBLE
NGUYEN & GRIBBLE LLP
NGUYEN & GRIBBLE
NGUYEN GRIBBLE

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

4 for the defense

2 for the applicant

Counted over 6 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.

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 →

ADJ16042609 · 2025-10-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the "Order Rejecting Applications for Adjudication of Claim" issued on July 26, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ rejected multiple applications for adjudication because applicant has been declared a vexatious litigant and is subject to a pre-filing order, and that applicant failed to seek permission to file the new applications pursuant to the pre-filing order.

The petitioner failed to comply with the vexatious litigant pre-filing order and did not obtain permission to file new applications, so removal was denied because substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was not shown and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14201895 · 2023-05-12 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Defendant alleges the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers and the evidence does not justify the findings of fact. Defendant based this on the belief that the undersigned did not review Defendant's trial brief and that the decision was inconsistent with applicable law. The cost petitioner does not specify on which basis it has filed the Petition for Reconsideration, but one could infer that they are alleging the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers when the undersigned excluded proffered exhibits. Cost Petitioner alleges the excluded exhibits were material to the determination of bad faith and that vacating the decision and submission is necessary to allow new evidence that was not available at the time of trial. Both parties failed to state facts that would support the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers or that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact.

The petitions for reconsideration were denied because the parties failed to show the WCJ acted without or in excess of powers or that the evidence did not justify the findings of fact. New arguments not raised at trial were rejected, and excluded evidence was found not material to bad faith determination.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11256912 · 2023-02-21 · Oxnard 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 no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15522831 · 2023-01-23 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Reconsideration has been sought with regard to the decision filed on November 4, 2022. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pending the issuance of a Decision after Reconsideration in the above case, all further correspondence, objections, motions, requests and communications relating to the petition shall be filed only with the Office of the Commissioners of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board at either its street address (455 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102), or its e-mail address (WCABgrantforstudy@dir.ca.gov). It is within the discretion of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to determine whether any document submitted for filing is accepted for filing (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10615(c) [eff. January 1, 2022]).

Reconsideration granted to allow further study of factual and legal issues and to issue a just and reasoned decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12884537 · 2022-04-27 · 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →