California WCABLaw firm

Zgrablich & Montgomery

Zgrablich & Montgomery is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Penalties under Labor Code §5814 (2) and Earnings / average weekly earnings (1). They were heard most often at Marina del Rey, then Los Angeles. The firm it meets most often is Garrett Law Group (3).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 5

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 10 of 11 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

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

Who they face

5 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Marina del Rey 3
Los Angeles 2
Long Beach 1
San Francisco 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.

4 for the applicant
4 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ10280441 · 2025-05-16 · Marina Del Rey District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. Section 3208.3 provides, in relevant part:
The WCJ found that the applicant sustained an industrial psychiatric injury and that the defendant did not meet its burden to prove the injury was substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The WCAB affirmed this finding.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ12181367 · 2025-01-15 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Here, we agree with the WCJ that nothing in the governing statues or regulations appears to per se require defendant to provide investigative and witness logs that correspond to sub rosa surveillance it intends to forward to the AME along with the surveillance videos themselves. Nor do any of the cases cited in the Petition directly involve the statutory and regulatory provisions at issue here. Accordingly, the failure to serve those logs on applicant does not compel a finding that the sub rosa surveillance must be suppressed.
Defendant's failure to provide investigator and witness logs does not require exclusion of the sub rosa video absent a genuine dispute as to authenticity or relevance; applicant may still object and seek discovery.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ12226694 · 2024-06-17Penalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.91. In the applicant (ADJ12226694), it appears that Lance Garrett signed a petition for reconsideration, which was verified by Susan Garrett, that appears to have been filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or was an action that appears to be indisputably without merit.
The petitions for reconsideration were filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings or with improper motive, or were indisputably without merit, warranting sanctions and costs.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ12226694 · 2024-06-17Penalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8While it is true that an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) is a final order, and thus subject to reconsideration, one may only file for reconsideration in good faith. Every issue raised in the Petitions for Reconsideration were issues set for trial. No reasonable explanation exists for filing a petition for reconsideration of an issue set for trial on the morning of trial. Such conduct defies logic. It appears that the Petitions for Reconsideration in these matters were filed as subterfuge, and that the true motive was to achieve a delay in the trial. This appears particularly true, given the overall pattern of conduct in that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed at least eight other petitions for reconsideration within this same time frame, all of which were filed to delay trial settings. (See Ledezma, supra.)
The petitions for reconsideration were filed solely to delay trial proceedings, were without merit, and constituted bad-faith conduct warranting sanctions and costs.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ11869760 · 2021-09-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 8, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of colon cancer.
The defendant failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption linking the colon cancer to employment exposure. The medical evidence, including Dr. Hirsch's opinions, supported the presumption and the latency period argument was not sufficient to rebut it.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10507939 · 2021-06-03 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.5If the true basis for the WCJ's finding of no bilateral knee injury is that applicant's claim was made beyond the Statute of Limitations (an affirmative defense), we cannot uphold it because the WCJ's Opinion on Decision did not provide a complete factual and legal analysis of the elements necessary to sustain the defense. (See Lab. Code, § 5313.) The Opinion on Decision enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the actual basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful. (Evans v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753 [33 Cal. Comp. Cases 350].)
The WCJ's finding of no bilateral knee injury was reversed because the WCJ did not provide a complete factual and legal analysis of the statute of limitations defense and further development of the record was warranted due to evidence suggesting possible cumulative trauma injury to the knees.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ13363828 · 2026-05-15 · Marina del Rey District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6whether applicant was entitled to payment of the full amount of accrued permanent disability benefits at the time of the Award on May 1, 2024. Specifically, the WCJ found it was inappropriate for defendant to satisfy a portion of attorney fees from the accrued permanent disability benefits owed to applicant before commuting the remaining balance from the far end of the Award. Based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits of defendant's arguments, and for the reasons discussed below, we find no basis to disturb the WCJ's findings.
The WCJ and WCAB found that defendant improperly took attorney's fees from accrued permanent disability benefits before commuting the balance to the far end of the Award, causing an interruption of benefits to applicant, contrary to the stipulations and Labor Code section 5100.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ972712 · 2024-03-12 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ issued the First Amended Findings and Award on December 5, 2023. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, January 2, 2024 to file a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 12, 2024 is untimely and will be dismissed.
The Petition for Reconsideration was filed after the statutory deadline and is therefore untimely; the Appeals Board has no authority to consider an untimely petition.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11140372 · 2023-09-27 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.3The following information shall be contained in the introduction of the report: Defendant1 has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration (Petition) to this judge's decision on July 1, 2022. That decision, which was served on June 17, 2022, issued a 76% award without Benson2 apportionment amongst a specific injury and a cumulative injury. Defendant has several complaints about the decision, and urges separate awards with much lower permanent disability. Applicant3 has filed a timely and verified answer (Answer) to the Petition. Applicant generally supports the decision, although she also urges that the award should be increased due to a mistaken nonindustrial apportionment for her psyche injury. (Defendant urges that there should be no award on permanent disability at all for psyche.) As both parties have urged some action by the appeals board, this judge has submitted this report and cases for the board's review. However, this judge recommends that the board vacate the findings and award, and remand this matter for further development of the record. As will be summarized, both parties are arguing about complex issues over which there is no substantial medical evidence to make final decisions.
The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence was insufficiently developed to make final decisions on complex issues, and thus vacated the prior decision and remanded 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. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

ZGRABLICH & MONTGOMERY
Zgrablich & Montgomery

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.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Zgrablich & Montgomery

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

4 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ10280441 · 2025-05-16 · Marina Del Rey District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. Section 3208.3 provides, in relevant part:

The WCJ found that the applicant sustained an industrial psychiatric injury and that the defendant did not meet its burden to prove the injury was substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The WCAB affirmed this finding.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ12181367 · 2025-01-15 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Here, we agree with the WCJ that nothing in the governing statues or regulations appears to per se require defendant to provide investigative and witness logs that correspond to sub rosa surveillance it intends to forward to the AME along with the surveillance videos themselves. Nor do any of the cases cited in the Petition directly involve the statutory and regulatory provisions at issue here. Accordingly, the failure to serve those logs on applicant does not compel a finding that the sub rosa surveillance must be suppressed.

Defendant's failure to provide investigator and witness logs does not require exclusion of the sub rosa video absent a genuine dispute as to authenticity or relevance; applicant may still object and seek discovery.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ12226694 · 2024-06-17Penalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.91. In the applicant (ADJ12226694), it appears that Lance Garrett signed a petition for reconsideration, which was verified by Susan Garrett, that appears to have been filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or was an action that appears to be indisputably without merit.

The petitions for reconsideration were filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings or with improper motive, or were indisputably without merit, warranting sanctions and costs.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ12226694 · 2024-06-17Penalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8While it is true that an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) is a final order, and thus subject to reconsideration, one may only file for reconsideration in good faith. Every issue raised in the Petitions for Reconsideration were issues set for trial. No reasonable explanation exists for filing a petition for reconsideration of an issue set for trial on the morning of trial. Such conduct defies logic. It appears that the Petitions for Reconsideration in these matters were filed as subterfuge, and that the true motive was to achieve a delay in the trial. This appears particularly true, given the overall pattern of conduct in that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed at least eight other petitions for reconsideration within this same time frame, all of which were filed to delay trial settings. (See Ledezma, supra.)

The petitions for reconsideration were filed solely to delay trial proceedings, were without merit, and constituted bad-faith conduct warranting sanctions and costs.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ11869760 · 2021-09-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 8, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of colon cancer.

The defendant failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption linking the colon cancer to employment exposure. The medical evidence, including Dr. Hirsch's opinions, supported the presumption and the latency period argument was not sufficient to rebut it.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10507939 · 2021-06-03 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.5If the true basis for the WCJ's finding of no bilateral knee injury is that applicant's claim was made beyond the Statute of Limitations (an affirmative defense), we cannot uphold it because the WCJ's Opinion on Decision did not provide a complete factual and legal analysis of the elements necessary to sustain the defense. (See Lab. Code, § 5313.) The Opinion on Decision enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the actual basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful. (Evans v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753 [33 Cal. Comp. Cases 350].)

The WCJ's finding of no bilateral knee injury was reversed because the WCJ did not provide a complete factual and legal analysis of the statute of limitations defense and further development of the record was warranted due to evidence suggesting possible cumulative trauma injury to the knees.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ13363828 · 2026-05-15 · Marina del Rey District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6whether applicant was entitled to payment of the full amount of accrued permanent disability benefits at the time of the Award on May 1, 2024. Specifically, the WCJ found it was inappropriate for defendant to satisfy a portion of attorney fees from the accrued permanent disability benefits owed to applicant before commuting the remaining balance from the far end of the Award. Based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits of defendant's arguments, and for the reasons discussed below, we find no basis to disturb the WCJ's findings.

The WCJ and WCAB found that defendant improperly took attorney's fees from accrued permanent disability benefits before commuting the balance to the far end of the Award, causing an interruption of benefits to applicant, contrary to the stipulations and Labor Code section 5100.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ972712 · 2024-03-12 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ issued the First Amended Findings and Award on December 5, 2023. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, January 2, 2024 to file a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 12, 2024 is untimely and will be dismissed.

The Petition for Reconsideration was filed after the statutory deadline and is therefore untimely; the Appeals Board has no authority to consider an untimely petition.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11140372 · 2023-09-27 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.3The following information shall be contained in the introduction of the report: Defendant1 has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration (Petition) to this judge's decision on July 1, 2022. That decision, which was served on June 17, 2022, issued a 76% award without Benson2 apportionment amongst a specific injury and a cumulative injury. Defendant has several complaints about the decision, and urges separate awards with much lower permanent disability. Applicant3 has filed a timely and verified answer (Answer) to the Petition. Applicant generally supports the decision, although she also urges that the award should be increased due to a mistaken nonindustrial apportionment for her psyche injury. (Defendant urges that there should be no award on permanent disability at all for psyche.) As both parties have urged some action by the appeals board, this judge has submitted this report and cases for the board's review. However, this judge recommends that the board vacate the findings and award, and remand this matter for further development of the record. As will be summarized, both parties are arguing about complex issues over which there is no substantial medical evidence to make final decisions.

The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence was insufficiently developed to make final decisions on complex issues, and thus vacated the prior decision and remanded for further development of the record.

Official decision · page 3 →