Od Legal

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131

Where they appear

• Lodi 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Salinas 1
• Santa Barbara 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.

• 2 for the applicant
• 2 for the defense

Counted over 4 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.

• ADJ18236958 · 2026-03-06 · Lodi District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.73. However, the WCJ raised concerns about the amount of the attorney's fees, and the Petitions for Reconsideration raised the issue of the amount of the attorney's fees. Although parties' stipulations should be allowed where possible, as provided for in Weatherall, supra, that approach is not applicable to attorney's fees in a workers' compensation proceeding. This is because it is not the parties' stipulation but rather sections 4903 and 4906 that give the WCAB jurisdiction to set the legal fees of attorneys appearing before it. (See also Cal. Code Reg., title 8, § 10840-10844.) Attorney's fees generally present as a lien against compensation. (Section 4903(a).) "The Legislature has thus spoken clearly and decisively that attorney fees in workers' compensation cases cannot exceed an amount that is `reasonable' and that the WCAB shall be the final arbiter of reasonableness in all cases." (Vierra v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1148, [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1128].) "Once services are rendered, the WCJ may approve, increase or reduce the fees provided for in the agreement, taking into consideration the

  The WCAB found that attorney's fees must be reasonable and that the parties must be given an opportunity to be heard on the issue; the prior orders rescinding the Award were vacated because they improperly referenced an email not in evidence and rescinded the entire Award despite no dispute on SIBTF liability; the matter was remanded for further proceedings on attorney's fees.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10037291 · 2025-01-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Ruiz instructs us that a failure to file a claim of proof in the bankruptcy proceedings when an employee does not yet have a compensation award from which to file a proof of claim is not fatal. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court's finding that applicant here is enjoined from pursuing his workers' compensation claim was in error. Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, rescind the October 8, 2024 Findings and Order, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  The Appeals Board found that the failure to file a proof of claim in bankruptcy was not fatal to the applicant's workers' compensation claim because the employee did not yet have a compensation award at the time of bankruptcy, following the reasoning in Slali v. Ruiz (2002).

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ15370512 · 2026-08-07 · Salinas District OfficeOther disputed issuedeferred

  Determinative passage · p.73. The issue of whether applicant met the 5% or 35% SIBTF eligibility thresholds is deferred.

  The Board found that the issue of whether the applicant met the 5% or 35% eligibility thresholds under Labor Code section 4751 was not sufficiently developed in the record and deferred the issue for further development at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10067067 · 2021-12-01 · Marina del Rey 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 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 a final adverse decision issued.

  Official decision · page 1 →

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.