Law Offices of Robert Ozeran

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 22
• Santa Ana 4
• San Bernardino 3
• Anaheim 1
• Fresno 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• San Bernadino 1
• San Diego 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.

• 17 for the defense
• 12 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 33 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.

• ADJ19334270 · 2026-06-05 · San Bernardino District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813remanded

  Determinative passage · p.6As a matter of due process, applicant's attorney should have been provided with a hearing, and a record should have been created. Initially, we observe that applicant may very well have "appeared" at the conference as defined in WCAB Rule 10305(c), but since the record is devoid of any evidence, we cannot make the determination as to whether applicant satisfied the requirement. While sanctions can be imposed for a "[f]ailure to appear or appearing late at a conference or trial where a reasonable excuse is not offered..." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b)(1)), there is no evidence to determine if the excuse was reasonable, as no evidence has been admitted to the record. There is also no evidence regarding whether applicant's attorney received the NIT. Further, we observe that the NIT and the Order present other structural problems, as the WCJ did not specifically identify the offending person by name and only identified the law firm. Additionally, as noted previously, as part of the record, the WCJ should admit evidence as to whether the NIT and the Order were properly served on all parties.

  The record lacked evidence as to whether applicant's attorney received the Notice of Intention or whether the failure to appear was deliberate or excusable; due process required a hearing and a record before imposing sanctions.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17889850 · 2025-07-07 · San Bernardino District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Further, applicant showed good cause why his case should not be dismissed, as required by the NIT. In the Affidavit, applicant stated that he had previously changed his phone number and forgot to inform his attorney and that he was dealing with some personal hardships that distracted him. (Affidavit, p. 1.) He further stated that he did not intend to abandon or stop pursuing his case and that he was unaware that his lack of communication could lead to dismissal of his claim. (Affidavit, p. 1.) He had reestablished communication with his attorney on or around January 9, 2025, and was committed to actively participating in the legal process going forward. (Affidavit, pp. 1-2.) This verified Affidavit from applicant shows good cause not to dismiss applicant's case.

  Applicant cured the defect of lack of verification by filing a verified affidavit; applicant showed good cause for inactivity; due process requires the case be heard on the merits.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ20067702 · 2025-06-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813remanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Moreover, petitioner was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the WCJ entering the Order reducing the agreed-upon attorney's fees. (11/5/24 Fee Disclosure Statement; 3/13/25 Order Approving C&R.) Petitioner thus had no opportunity "to supplement the facts developed in the course of the proceedings by other evidence as to the extent and value of the legal services." (Bentley, supra, at pp. 549-550.) For these reasons, we must return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  The WCJ reduced the agreed attorney fee from 15% to 10% without providing petitioner notice or an opportunity to be heard, and without specifying the evidence relied upon. Due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to present evidence. The record was not sufficiently developed to support the reduction. The matter is remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ18210611 · 2025-05-08 · San Bernardino District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Based upon the foregoing, and Dr. Shaffzin's recommendation in his report of December 19, 2023 for further evaluations by "a pulmonologist, an internist for diabetes mellitus, ophthalmologist, ENT, and possibly a neurologist regarding chronic headaches[,]" we believe good cause for the additional QME panels has been established. (Exhibit Q, p. 15.)

  The WCAB found good cause for additional QME panels based on Dr. Schaffzin's recommendation and the need for further development of the evidentiary record to ensure substantial justice.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14328080 · 2024-10-16 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In the instant case, defendant failed to serve applicant with a copy of the letter indicating defendant's intention to seek dismissal of the claim in contravention to WCAB Rule 10550(b). Defendant served only applicant's attorney and American Claims Management. As indicated by the WCJ, failure to serve notice to applicant not only makes defendant's Petition to Dismiss defective, but "violates applicant's right to due process." (Report, p. 3.)

  Defendant failed to serve applicant with the required notice under WCAB Rule 10550(b), making the Petition to Dismiss defective and violating applicant's due process rights. Additionally, the cases were reactivated for hearing, restarting the one-year period for dismissal under Rule 10550(a), rendering the issue moot.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ16125996 · 2024-09-20 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on July 2, 2024 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the Findings and Order issued on July 2, 2024 is RESCINDED and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:

  The Appeals Board found that a finding of industrial injury is not a prerequisite to awarding deposition attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5710(b), and that the dismissal of ICW without prejudice does not bar the applicant's petition for such fees.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ14289195 · 2024-09-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. Section 5813(a) provides for sanctions for "bad-faith actions or tactics which are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." (Lab. Code, § 5813(a).) These include "actions or tactics that result from a willful failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory obligation, that result from a willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, or that are done for an improper motive or are indisputably without merit." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) Here, as explained further below, we do not agree that applicant's attorney's petition seeking fees pursuant to section 5710 was indisputably without merit or otherwise displayed sanctionable conduct. Sanctions are designed to punish litigation abuses and to provide the court a tool for curbing improper legal tactics and controlling their calendars. (Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 294, 302.) An argument that is unmeritorious is not necessarily frivolous, which can be defined as "not having any serious purpose or value". (See "Frivolous", Google Dictionary, retrieved September 13, 2024, from http://www.google.com.) Section 5710 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

  The WCAB found no sanctionable conduct by applicant's attorney and denied all attorney fees and sanctions requests due to lack of proof of entitlement to additional fees.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11603234 · 2024-08-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 15, 2024, wherein the WCJ found that while employed as a Reserve Part-time Sworn Sheriff's Deputy by the County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, the applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) resulting in his death on August 11, 2017; that decedent's status as an employee was not barred by Labor Code section 3352(a)(3)1; that decedent's injury was proximately caused by his participation in a voluntary off-duty athletic activity; that defendant did not expressly or impliedly require decedent's participation in the athletic event; and that applicant's claim is barred by section 3600(a)(9).

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to determine if the injury arose out of and in the course of employment due to missing evidence on employment status and reasonable expectancy of participation in the athletic event, thus deferring final decision for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11373827 · 2024-07-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Defendant objects to Applicant's Exhibits 1 through 5 contending lack of foundation, authentication of those documents, identification of those documents, and defendant's due process rights to cross-examine the recipients of the text messages. Applicant's Exhibits 1 through 5 will be marked for identification and their admissibility will be ruled on at the time of the Finding and Decision. (Minutes of Hearing, October 24, 2023, p. 3.) Then, on January 18, 2024, the WCJ issued the disputed F&O, specifically finding: "Applicant's exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are admissible over Defendant's objection and are given the appropriate weight," and explained the reasons for his decision in the corresponding Opinion on Decision. (F&O, January 18, 2024, p. 2; Opinion on Decision, January 18, 2024, pp. 3-5.)

  The WCJ overruled defendant's objections after trial, finding applicant's exhibits admissible and properly authenticated, and the panel found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16268064 · 2023-11-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4In the April 24, 2023 Order granting applicant's Petition for additional QME panels, the WCJ merely states: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that The DIR Medical Unit shall issue an additional panels QME List in the area of Internal Medicine (MMM) and Psychiatry (MPD.)" The WCJ does not discuss her reasoning for her decision. Additionally, the Order issued without a hearing, no minutes were filed, no testimony was taken, and the WCJ did not provide a summary of the evidence she relied on in making her decision.

  The WCJ issued an order granting additional QME panels without holding a hearing, creating a record, or providing a summary of the evidence relied upon, as required by law. The Appeals Board found this was improper and rescinded the order, remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12924233 · 2023-10-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Turning to the issue of joinder, we note that the joinder of parties pursuant to WCAB Rule 103822 is permissive rather than mandatory, as evidenced by the word "may." It serves judicial economy to join all parties "whose presence is necessary for the full adjudication of the case," and such joinder should be accomplished to the extent that it is possible. However, despite the passage of a significant amount of time and effort and several hearings, such joinder has not occurred in these cases. The WCJ did not cite nor did we find any authority for the notion that applicant is the

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found no authority obligating the applicant to secure joinder of necessary parties; the employment issue against the joined insured employer may proceed while joinder of other parties is deferred.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11603234 · 2023-06-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4As explained above, defendant bore the burden to demonstrate that this exclusion applied to the applicant. (Lab. Code, § 5705(a).) However, defendant presented no evidence that the applicant was appointed for his "own convenience" as required by the statute, and wholly failed to address whether the payments made to the applicant, as described by Rody the applicant during trial, constituted "compensation" under the statute. Absent such evidence, it is not possible to determine whether defendant satisfied its burden to demonstrate that the statute applied to the applicant. The matter will thus be returned to the trial level for further development of the record on this issue.

  The record was insufficient for the WCJ to determine employment status under the cited Labor Code sections, as defendant failed to provide evidence to meet its burden of proof for exclusion from employee status.

  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.

• THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT OZERAN
• LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT OZERAN
• LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT OZERAN
• Law Offices of Robert Ozeran
• LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT OZERAN LAW
• Law Office of Robert Ozeran
• ROBERT OZERAN. ESQ.

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.