Ro & You

What they litigate

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

• Contribution / subrogation1
• Jurisdiction / venue1

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 2
• Anaheim 1
• Sacramento 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.

• 5 for the defense
• 1 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.

• ADJ1680248 · 2026-08-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeContribution / subrogationmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1324. The Arbitrator found, based on the medical report of the Agreed Medical Evaluator, the value of future medical treatment, the MSA and approval by CMS and the fact the AME found applicant's rheumatoid arthritis to various body parts was aggravated by his employment at California Pizza Kitchen and applicant's fibromyalgia was aggravated by his employment at California Pizza Kitchen, the Arbitrator finds the amount of the settlement is reasonable. 25. The Arbitrator found that American Home Assurance Company did not fail to file a timely Petition for Contribution against Hartford because Hartford had no liability for the second different continuous trauma injury. 26. The Arbitrator, based on the findings above, found that Zurich American Insurance Company is responsible for 29% of the amount of the Compromise and Release Agreement and 29% of the Stipulated Award of temporary disability. 27. The Arbitrator found that Zurich American Insurance Company is entitled to a credit for the sums they paid to the applicant in an amount to be adjusted between the parties with the Arbitrator retaining jurisdiction in case of a dispute. That credit is limited by the fact they are responsible for 29% of that amount paid and, therefore, the credit is 71% of the amount that they paid. 28.

  Zurich American Insurance Company was found responsible for 29% of the Compromise and Release Agreement and the Stipulated Award of temporary disability based on insurance coverage periods and injury periods.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ13967400 · 2022-10-17 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the January 26, 2022 Order Denying Petitions to Quash and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions (Order). Therein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denied eight petitions filed by defendant seeking to quash various subpoenas duces tecum directed to third-parties, because the defendant failed to file meet and confer declarations in support of its petitions as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(c). The Order further noticed the court's intention to impose monetary sanctions on defendant. Defendant contends the subpoenas should be quashed because they are duplicative, and because defendant received inadequate notice of the subpoenas due to defective service. (Petition for Removal, dated February 28, 2022, at 5:11.)

  The WCJ denied the petitions for failure to attach meet and confer declarations as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(c), but the Appeals Board found the WCJ's denial improper and granted removal to allow further proceedings and clarification of the applicable rules.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16556325 · 2023-09-06 · Van Nuys 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 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 →
• ADJ13595177 · 2022-08-03 · Santa Ana 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 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 decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12964908 · 2022-06-29 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on January 26, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so the Board dismissed it.

  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.

• RO & YOU LLP
• RO & YOU
• RO YOU, ESQ.
• Ro & You

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.