Litigation and Consulting Associates

What they litigate

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

• Penalties under Labor Code §58143
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR2
• Jurisdiction / venue1

Where they appear

• Anaheim 3
• Santa Ana 2
• Fresno 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Oxnard 1
• Pomona 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.

• 3 for the defense
• 3 returned for more record
• 2 for the applicant

Counted over 8 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.

• ADJ10684244 · 2026-04-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Accordingly, we rescind the F&O, and substitute a new Findings of Fact that finds that cost petitioner met its burden under Labor Code section 4620 to show a contested claim existed at the time it provided its medical-legal services beginning on January 23, 2017 and defer all other issues. We return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision. For the foregoing reasons,

  The WCAB found that a contested claim existed at the time the cost petitioner provided medical-legal services beginning January 23, 2017, based on the filing of the Application, defendant's notices terminating benefits, and issuance of subpoenas, thus meeting the burden under Labor Code section 4620.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10914834 · 2025-08-29 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed

  Determinative passage · p.7With respect to the issue of whether defendant was liable for the cost of the copy services, interest, and penalties, we agree with the WCJ that cost petitioner met its burden of proof under sections 4620, 4621, and 4622. We observe that defendant's argument that applicant should not have engaged in discovery because applicant claimed injury to psyche and had been employed by it for less than six months to be disingenuous at best. The Application claimed injury to psyche and to applicant's digestive system, a physical injury. Notably, the C&R included release of claimed injury to the body parts of "stress," psyche, digestive, head and back. The six month prohibition in section 3208.3(d) only applies to injuries to psyche and not to claimed physical injuries. Thus, this argument is unwarranted and is not supported by the statutes, decisional law, or the evidence before us.

  The Board found that the cost petitioner met its burden to prove the medical-legal services were reasonably and necessarily incurred for a contested claim, and that defendant breached its duty to timely contest the fees, but did not engage in bad faith actions warranting sanctions.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11228281 · 2024-04-16 · Fresno District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Cost Petitioner avers the WCJ's May 22, 2023 Order is a due process violation because it does not state a basis for the decision, and thus denies Cost Petitioner the "ability to intelligently appeal, and present argument or evidence to the contrary." (Petition, at p. 3:11.)

  The WCJ's May 22, 2023 order denying the Petition to Compel Non-Medical Discovery did not state a basis for the denial, depriving the petitioner of due process and a meaningful right of appeal, warranting removal and rescission of the order.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10931911 · 2024-03-19 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814remanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ's decision failed to address the sole issue presented for trial, which, again, was: "Whether defendants are liable for costs, monetary sanctions, and attorney fees for their failure to object to Cost Petitioner's invoices." (MOH, October 9, 2023, p. 3.) In accordance with section 5313, Hamilton, and Garza, supra, we therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ to issue a new decision addressing the issue submitted for trial. In the new decision, the WCJ must make findings upon all facts involved in the controversy, cite to admitted evidence in support of each finding, and identify the authority upon which the opinion is based.

  The WCJ's decision failed to address the issue of defendant's liability for costs and sanctions due to failure to object to invoices, so the WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11005247 · 2023-06-06 · Oxnard District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

  The Board found no evidence of bad faith by the defendant in contesting or delaying payment of medical-legal charges, thus denying sanctions and costs.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10210233 · 2026-02-27 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on December 19, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

  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.

• LITIGATION AND CONSULTING ASSOCIATES
• LITIGATION AND CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, APLC
• Litigation and Consulting Associates
• LITIGATION AND CONSULTING ASOCIATES
• LITIGATION AND CONSULTING ASSOC

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.