Straussner Sherman

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 30
• San Bernardino 3
• Anaheim 1
• Bakersfield 1
• San Francisco 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 22 for the applicant
• 9 for the defense
• 7 returned for more record

Counted over 36 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.

• ADJ16023818 · 2026-05-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, we apply the above reasoning with respect to our responsibility to consider the actual language of the agreement to the Stipulations. Paragraphs 1 and 2 require that the information must be correctly provided. Here, it was not. In Paragraph 1, which is a stipulation as to injury and the date of injury, the injury was described as a specific injury. In Paragraph 2, which is a stipulation as to temporary disability, including periods of payment and rate of payment, the only statement was "SEE BELOW." Moreover, there is nothing in Paragraph 9 to indicate what type of temporary

  The WCAB found that the Stipulations did not resolve the period of temporary disability from December 29, 2021 through June 3, 2022, and that the WCJ failed to properly analyze the restoration of time and payment rate. The WCAB granted reconsideration and returned the matter for further proceedings to determine the correct periods and amounts owed.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ19473797 · 2025-12-16 · Santa Ana District OfficePsyche AOE/COEmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration and removal of the September 12, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained an injury to his psyche arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) while employed by defendant during the period from January 18, 2023 to May 27, 2024; that defendant demonstrated there was a good-faith personnel action; and that the record lacks sufficient evidence to determine permanent and stationary date, permanent disability, apportionment and the need for further medical treatment. The WCJ deferred those issues, ordered that the parties develop the record on those issues; and ordered that the parties return to the respective psych doctors to complete a Rolda analysis and issue a final report.

  The WCJ found applicant sustained a psychiatric injury AOE/COE based on substantial evidence including Dr. Dorsey's diagnosis and testimony, which was challenged but not yet finally overturned. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review this threshold issue.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16432899 · 2025-08-25 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the June 13, 2025 Findings of Facts and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in Case No. ADJ16432899. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain a specific injury arising out of or in the course of her employment to her psyche while employed as a psychologist on April 12, 2022. Based on these findings, the WCJ order that applicant take nothing.

  The WCJ found no specific injury on April 12, 2022, as the events described were ongoing cumulative trauma rather than a single incident. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17819410 · 2025-07-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The instant matter concerns payment of Labor Code § 4850 benefits - as stipulated by the parties, applicant is a firefighter, which entitles him to § 4850 benefits in lieu of temporary disability for a period of up to one year. Essentially, applicant claims entitlement to § 4850 benefits for the period from October 10, 2023 to the present and continuing. As evidenced by the Benefit Printout, admitted into evidence as defendant's exhibit "D", defendant has allegedly paid applicant full salary § 4850 benefits from October 10, 2022 through October 9, 2023, but then switched to payment of "state rate" temporary disability benefits as of October 10, 2023.

  Applicant was entitled to separate 4850 benefits for two distinct injuries with overlapping but partially non-overlapping periods of temporary disability, supported by medical evidence and legal precedent.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10627978 · 2025-01-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5However, in our en banc decision in Nunes, supra, 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741, we held that vocational evidence must address apportionment and may not substitute impermissible "vocational apportionment" in place of otherwise valid medical apportionment. (Id. at pp. 743-744.) Examples of impermissible vocational evidence included assertions that applicant's disability is solely attributable to the current industrial injury because applicant had no prior work restrictions, or was able to adequately perform their job, or suffered no wage loss prior to the current industrial injury. (Id. at p. 754.) Accordingly, we concluded:

  The Board found that the vocational expert's apportionment analysis was impermissible vocational apportionment and not substantial evidence, and that the orthopedic IME's apportionment opinions were not substantial evidence. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of permanent and total disability without apportionment.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16012097 · 2024-07-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on April 30, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed as an investigator by the County of Los Angeles during the period of May 21, 1991 through November 5, 2021, applicant sustained injury to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left knee, with Whole Person Impairment (WPI) before application of the Labor Code Section 4660.1(b)1 1.4 adjustment factor, adjustment for occupation and age of 7 percent for the cervical spine, 7 percent for the lumbar spine, and 12 percent for the left knee, and WPI after application of the adjustment factor of 10 percent for the cervical spine, 10 percent for the lumbar spine, and 17 percent for the left knee, and with apportionment of the neck disability of 10 percent and the left knee disability of 75 percent; (2) applicant's subsequent permanent disability excluding apportionment amounts to 10 percent for the cervical spine, 10 percent for the lumbar spine, and 17 percent for the left knee; and (3) the subsequent permanent disability of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left knee are added and amount to 37 percent, establishing the 35 percent threshold for entitlement to SIBTF benefits under section 4751(b).

  The Board found that the WCJ erroneously applied the Combined Values Chart and apportionment in calculating the permanent disability threshold, requiring further medical evidence to determine the accurate method of combining impairments and application of the adjustment factor.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15489825 · 2024-06-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In the case at hand, the applicant, a full-time salaried custody assistant who worked for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department inside the Inmate Reception Center, was charged with supervising up to15 male inmates daily and authorized to search or detain them. She was also responsible for booking and releasing inmates. The fact that she wore a duty belt with law enforcement equipment including handcuffs, pepper spray, a radio and a flashlight demonstrated that she was exposed to imminent harm and required to maintain jail security. In fact, her personnel records (Exhibit B) contain a written commendation dated March 16, 2011 for assisting a senior deputy to control and restrain an inmate who exuberated erratic behavior and repeatedly struck his head against a glass window and a floor. the applicant testified at trial that on one occasion, she was alone and had to take corrective action against an unruly inmate by telling him to face the wall so she could handcuff him. Though the applicant is not a sworn peace officer, her job duties constitute active law enforcement, and her exposure to danger from working closely with inmates places her within the scope of the statutory framework intended to protect such safety personnel. Therefore, the applicant should be entitled to the heart presumption under Labor Code Section 3212.

  The applicant's job duties as a custody assistant constitute active law enforcement, entitling her to the heart presumption under Labor Code Section 3212.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10647098 · 2024-03-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2(Lab. Code, § 3212, italics added.) The WCJ found that applicant sustained presumptive injury to his heart arising out of and occurring in the course of employment pursuant to section 3212, as he was an employee of the fire department of the county and his duties were not principally clerical. (Joint Findings and Award, p. 2; Opinion on Decision, p. 2.)

  Applicant was an employee of the county fire department whose duties were not principally clerical, entitling him to the heart trouble presumption under Labor Code section 3212.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10647098 · 2024-03-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2(Lab. Code, § 3212, italics added.) The WCJ found that applicant sustained presumptive injury to his heart arising out of and occurring in the course of employment pursuant to section 3212, as he was an employee of the fire department of the county and his duties were not principally clerical. (Joint Findings and Award, p. 2; Opinion on Decision, p. 2.)

  Applicant was an employee of the county fire department whose duties were not principally clerical, entitling him to the heart trouble presumption under Labor Code section 3212.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12877716 · 2024-01-11 · Bakersfield District OfficeApportionmentdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant and defendant County of Kern each petition for reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact, Award and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on June 7, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found in case ADJ12877716 that applicant sustained cumulative injury to his right knee, neck, back, right hip, right shoulder, feet, skin, psyche, cardiopulmonary system including heart and in the forms of gastroesophageal reflux disorder and sleep apnea arising out of and in the course of his employment as a fire captain by defendant during the period from 1983 to June 1, 2019, resulting in permanent partial disability of 96% and need of further medical treatment. The WCJ also found in cases ADJ11814948 and ADJ12877669 that applicant did not sustain an injury to his hands arising out of and in the course of his employment on February 26, 2017.

  The WCJ found cumulative injuries and apportionment issues, but the WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on stipulations, so no final outcome on these issues was reached.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11339126 · 2023-12-01 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3I INTRODUCTION Defendant County of Los Angeles has filed a timely, verified petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award dated September 29, 2023, which found that applicant, while employed on March 11, 2018 as a deputy sheriff, Occupational Group Number 490, at Los Angeles, California, by the County of Los Angeles, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her cervical spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder, left knee, left hand and index finger, with cerebral concussion, posttraumatic headaches, sleep disturbance, compartment syndrome of the left lower limb, bruxism, myositis, and trauma to her teeth and jaws, resulting in permanent, total disability. Deputy Sheriff the applicant was 46 years old when a drunk driver being pursued by the California Highway Patrol drove into her patrol vehicle head-on at a speed of 110 miles per hour. The drunk driver was killed, but the applicant survived despite being so severely crushed inside her vehicle that it took emergency personnel more than three hours to remove her using the jaws of life. Ms.

  The AMEs found 71% PD based on medical evidence, and vocational expert Vega found applicant not feasible for vocational rehabilitation, supporting permanent total disability. Defendant's vocational expert Corso's opinions were rejected for misinterpreting work restrictions and ignoring vocational testing. Surveillance videos were found not reliable to rebut disability.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11290614 · 2023-06-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Also, the physician must explain the nature of the other factors, how and why those factors are causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, and how and why those factors are responsible for the percentage of disability assigned by the physician. (Id. at 621.) Here, when addressing apportionment of applicant's right knee disability Dr. Craemer stated, "For the right knee, apportionment is 50% to the 6/9/13 injury and 50% to the continuous trauma." (Joint Exh. 1, p. 17.) However, he did not identify the factors of permanent disability

  Dr. Craemer's opinion on apportionment did not constitute substantial evidence because he failed to explain the basis for attributing 50% of the right knee disability to the 2013 injury and 50% to cumulative trauma; the issue is deferred for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 3 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 15.

• STRAUSSNER SHERMAN
• STRAUSSNER & SHERMAN
• Straussner Sherman
• Straussner, Sherman, Lonne, Treger, Helquist
• STRAUSSNER SHERMAN LONNE TREGER HELQUIST
• STRAUSSNER SHERMAN LONNÉ TREGER HELQUIST
• STRAUSSNER SHERMAN LONE TREGER HELQUIST
• Straussner Sherman Lonné Treger Helquist Krupnik
• STRAUSSNER, SHERMAN, LONN�, TREGER & HELQUIST
• Straussner, Sherman, Lonne, Treger & Helquist
• STRAUSSNER, SHERMAN, LONNE, TREGER & HELQUIST
• STRAUSSNER, SHERMAN, LONNE, TREGER, HELQUIST

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.