California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen

Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1), Permanent total disability (1) and Reopening / new and further disability (1). They were heard most often at San Diego, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Albert and Mackenzie (1).

Decisions: 13
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 4

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 of 9 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

3 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

San Diego 10
Anaheim 1
Pomona 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.

8 for the defense
4 for the applicant
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.

ADJ6502989 · 2023-10-16 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6However, as the WCJ explains in Finding of Fact No. 8, neither the October 22, 2021 nor November 23, 2021 RFAs request that defendant authorize medical transportation to all medical appointments on all appointment dates. Rather, the November 23, 2021 RFA reiterates the request lodged in the October 22, 2021 RFA for transportation to a single October 29, 2021 appointment with Dr. McWhorter. (Ex. 2, Request for Authorization, November 23, 2021; Ex. 7, Request for Authorization, October 22, 2021.) While applicant urges a broader reading of the RFA in tandem with the November 4, 2021 and April 23, 2023 letters of Dr. McWhorter, we agree that on the record before us, the requests were limited to a single date of service. (Opinion on Decision, p. 4.) Accordingly, we discern no basis to disturb the WCJ's determinations in this regard.
The RFAs in evidence requested transportation for a single appointment, not ongoing transportation to all appointments; no timely Utilization Review was performed, so WCAB had jurisdiction, but the record did not support a broader award.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11091494 · 2022-08-15 · San Diego District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5at pp.11-12.) The WCJ determined that while applicant had the requisite knowledge of the work-relatedness of her injuries as early as 2009, the evidence did not establish disability arising from the injury prior to applicant's first carpal tunnel release surgery in 2017. Accordingly, the WCJ set the date of injury at October 10, 2017, the date applicant first had both disability in the form of compensable temporary disability following surgery, and knowledge of its industrial causation. (Id. at p.13.) Because the application for adjudication was filed on November 9, 2017, the commencement of proceedings for collection of benefits was within one year of the date of injury, and the claim was not barred by the limitations period of section 5405. (Ibid.)
The WCJ and WCAB found that although applicant had knowledge of the injury as early as 2009, compensable disability did not occur until October 10, 2017, the date of first surgery with temporary disability, making the claim timely filed within one year thereafter.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ9097135 · 2025-09-04 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On January 7, 2025, defendant filed a Petition for Removal in response to the order contending that the order caused significant prejudice and irreparable harm. We note that when a party raises an issue at a mandatory settlement conference, but the case is set for trial, the party will have the opportunity to raise that issue at trial, so that under those circumstances, there is likely no significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
The petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the defendant did not notify the Appeals Board of withdrawal and the case proceeded to trial, causing delays and wasting resources.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6861253 · 2025-06-02 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and/or in the alternative 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The Appeals Board panel found the petition was timely filed and that removal was not warranted because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6861349 · 2025-02-24 · Anaheim 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.1 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 Appeals Board acted timely on the petition for reconsideration within the 60-day period from transmission of the case and found no basis to grant reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8451940 · 2025-01-27 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."
The petition for reconsideration was timely acted upon within 60 days of case transmission to the Appeals Board as required by amended Labor Code section 5909(a).
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ8267776 · 2023-02-13 · San Diego 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate 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 →
ADJ7088953 · 2021-05-25 · San Diego 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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 and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6861349 · 2021-04-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4part that was not identified as one of the disputed issues to be adjudicated at trial. The F&O improperly addressed issues that were not submitted for adjudication.
Removal is granted because the WCJ addressed issues (neck injury) not submitted for adjudication, and the F&O improperly required further development of the record on an unsubmitted issue.
Official decision · page 4 →

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 PHILIP M. COHEN
Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen
LAW OFFICE OF PHILIP M. COHEN
LAW OFFICE OF PHILIP COHEN
LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP M. COHEN, APC
Law Office of Philip M. Cohen
LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP COHEN

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 Philip M. Cohen

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

8 for the defense

4 for the applicant

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.

ADJ6502989 · 2023-10-16 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6However, as the WCJ explains in Finding of Fact No. 8, neither the October 22, 2021 nor November 23, 2021 RFAs request that defendant authorize medical transportation to all medical appointments on all appointment dates. Rather, the November 23, 2021 RFA reiterates the request lodged in the October 22, 2021 RFA for transportation to a single October 29, 2021 appointment with Dr. McWhorter. (Ex. 2, Request for Authorization, November 23, 2021; Ex. 7, Request for Authorization, October 22, 2021.) While applicant urges a broader reading of the RFA in tandem with the November 4, 2021 and April 23, 2023 letters of Dr. McWhorter, we agree that on the record before us, the requests were limited to a single date of service. (Opinion on Decision, p. 4.) Accordingly, we discern no basis to disturb the WCJ's determinations in this regard.

The RFAs in evidence requested transportation for a single appointment, not ongoing transportation to all appointments; no timely Utilization Review was performed, so WCAB had jurisdiction, but the record did not support a broader award.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11091494 · 2022-08-15 · San Diego District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5at pp.11-12.) The WCJ determined that while applicant had the requisite knowledge of the work-relatedness of her injuries as early as 2009, the evidence did not establish disability arising from the injury prior to applicant's first carpal tunnel release surgery in 2017. Accordingly, the WCJ set the date of injury at October 10, 2017, the date applicant first had both disability in the form of compensable temporary disability following surgery, and knowledge of its industrial causation. (Id. at p.13.) Because the application for adjudication was filed on November 9, 2017, the commencement of proceedings for collection of benefits was within one year of the date of injury, and the claim was not barred by the limitations period of section 5405. (Ibid.)

The WCJ and WCAB found that although applicant had knowledge of the injury as early as 2009, compensable disability did not occur until October 10, 2017, the date of first surgery with temporary disability, making the claim timely filed within one year thereafter.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ9097135 · 2025-09-04 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On January 7, 2025, defendant filed a Petition for Removal in response to the order contending that the order caused significant prejudice and irreparable harm. We note that when a party raises an issue at a mandatory settlement conference, but the case is set for trial, the party will have the opportunity to raise that issue at trial, so that under those circumstances, there is likely no significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

The petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the defendant did not notify the Appeals Board of withdrawal and the case proceeded to trial, causing delays and wasting resources.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6861253 · 2025-06-02 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and/or in the alternative 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

The Appeals Board panel found the petition was timely filed and that removal was not warranted because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6861349 · 2025-02-24 · Anaheim 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.1 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 Appeals Board acted timely on the petition for reconsideration within the 60-day period from transmission of the case and found no basis to grant reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8451940 · 2025-01-27 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

The petition for reconsideration was timely acted upon within 60 days of case transmission to the Appeals Board as required by amended Labor Code section 5909(a).

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ8267776 · 2023-02-13 · San Diego 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate 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 →

ADJ7088953 · 2021-05-25 · San Diego 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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 and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6861349 · 2021-04-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4part that was not identified as one of the disputed issues to be adjudicated at trial. The F&O improperly addressed issues that were not submitted for adjudication.

Removal is granted because the WCJ addressed issues (neck injury) not submitted for adjudication, and the F&O improperly required further development of the record on an unsubmitted issue.

Official decision · page 4 →

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 PHILIP M. COHEN

Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen

LAW OFFICE OF PHILIP M. COHEN

LAW OFFICE OF PHILIP COHEN

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP M. COHEN, APC

Law Office of Philip M. Cohen

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP COHEN