California WCABLaw firm

Acumen Law, LLP

Acumen Law, LLP is named in 22 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (4), AOE/COE (2) and Apportionment (2). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Long Beach.

Decisions: 22
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 10

What they litigate

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

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

14 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Van Nuys 7
Long Beach 3
Oakland 3
Marina del Rey 2
Pomona 2
Fresno 1
Oxnard 1
Riverside 1
San Diego 1
Santa Ana 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.

11 for the defense
9 for the applicant
3 returned for more record

Counted over 22 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.

ADJ14680333 · 2026-05-29 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.12Based on the record before us, we discern no reason to disturb our prior Decision and will therefore deny defendant's Petition.
The Board found that the medical opinions on apportionment lacked substantial evidence because they failed to provide adequate medical reasoning connecting the impairment to other factors, thus denying defendant's petition for reconsideration on apportionment.
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ14680333 · 2026-03-16 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11Here treating physician Jahng's apportionment is clearly conclusory and does not set forth the reasoning in support of its conclusions. Moreover, even the doctor seems to doubt his own conclusions as evidenced by the question marks at the end of his findings: "30% related to the industrial injury and 70% to non-industrial factors, including pre-existing degenerative changes and normal wear and tear.???" (Exhibit 1, Kenneth Jahng, M.D., October 23, 2023, p. 5.) Dr. Jahng's statements in his supplemental report that "[i]t appeared that his February 19, 2021 injury was an aggravating injury of a pre-existing condition thus 30% industrial apportionment was given" do not rehabilitate the conclusory nature of his opinions. (Exhibit A, Kenneth Jahng, M.D., November 25, 2024, p. 5.) It is clear Dr. Jahng's opinions are not substantial evidence of apportionment.
The medical opinions on apportionment were conclusory and lacked substantial evidence, so apportionment was not found and the permanent disability award was amended to 59% without apportionment.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ19575878 · 2025-12-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on September 9, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in pertinent part that applicant, while employed by defendant during the cumulative period ending July 2024, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to the left shoulder and deferred findings as to additional body parts; that the date of injury pursuant to Labor Code section 5412 was the date of the agreed medical evaluator (AME)'s report; and that the left shoulder injury resulted in temporary disability.1
The Appeals Board found the medical evidence insufficient and not substantial to support the WCJ's findings on cumulative injury and date of injury, requiring further development of the record and updated expert medical opinion.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18722627 · 2025-10-14 · Long Beach District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Like the WCJ, we are not persuaded that applicant had the requisite knowledge sufficient to commence the running of the statute of limitations. The first medical opinion in the record finding an industrial injury is the report of Dr. Iseke dated February 9, 2024. (Joint 1, p. 41). While applicant may have noticed increasing aches and pains, we also observe that an employee's suspicion that an injury is work-related is typically insufficient to establish the date of injury on a cumulative injury without medical advice. (Johnson, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 473.) Thus, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that applicant was informed that his work caused his injury. (See County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant did not have sufficient knowledge of the industrial cumulative trauma injury until early 2024, when he saw an advertisement, and thus the claim was timely filed within the statute of limitations.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ18784544 · 2025-08-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Thus, we are unable to determine if good cause exists at this juncture due to a lack of an adequate record. Therefore, we must rescind the Order and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. However, we note that since applicant claims injury to body parts outside the field of orthopedic medicine, it appears that additional QME panels will likely be required to fully address the claimed injury.
The WCJ failed to issue a Notice of Intention and did not make an adequate record to support the order for additional QME panels, violating due process and regulatory requirements.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11078470 · 2024-11-01 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues. This is our Decision After Reconsideration.
The WCJ must revisit whether the industrial injury to the right ankle and foot precluded applicant from fundraising, causing the program closure and job loss, and if so, whether applicant was temporarily disabled from February 1, 2018 and continuing, and whether wage loss was total or partial.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11969576 · 2023-12-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Turning to the merits of defendant's petition, defendant contends that applicant did not make a diligent good faith effort to obtain a PQME in internal medicine and that there was no evidence of a dispute to warrant a PQME in internal medicine.
Applicant exercised due diligence in requesting the additional PQME and there was a dispute necessitating the additional panel; defendant's denial of the referral and refusal to agree to the panel justified the order for the additional PQME.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ11969576 · 2023-09-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Here, the parties dispute the need for an additional QME panel in internal medicine so there is no joint agreement on the need for an additional evaluator in a different specialty. However, we conclude that good cause exists for a QME in internal medicine. Applicant claimed industrial injury to her arm, back, circulatory system, worsening of hypertension, and blood infection. (FA&O, Findings of Fact 1 & 2.) PTP Dr. Mahboubian recommended a specialty referral for an internal medicine evaluation and treatment. (Ex. 2, pp. 1-3; Ex. 3, pp. 1-2.) Although AME Dr. Newton was aware of applicant's other claimed injuries (Ex. X1, p. 3, 7-8; Ex. X3, pp. 3-5; Ex. X4, pp. 22-23), he failed to address these contested medical issues or advise the parties of any disputed medical issues outside of his scope of practice and area of clinical competency as required. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 35.5(c)(1), (d); Gill (Amarjeet) v. County of Fresno (2021) 86 Cal.Comp.Cases 609, 621 ["In the event that there are disputed medical issues in either claim that [QME] Dr. Lin is unable to address, it is incumbent on the QME to address those issues he is able to address and to advise the parties of any disputed medical issues outside of his scope of practice and area of clinical competency."].)
The orthopedic AME did not address all contested medical issues outside his specialty, and the PTP recommended internal medicine evaluation; good cause exists for an additional QME panel in internal medicine to resolve disputed medical issues.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ4668467 · 2023-05-25 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7The sole issue for determination is whether there is a plainly erroneous mistake of fact in the February 2, 2022 Independent Medical Review (IMR) Final Determination. The IMR Determination upheld the December 20, 2021 Utilization Review (UR) Denial (Exh. C) of a right shoulder platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections to applicant's right shoulder. Applicant contends that there is a factual dispute in that there is evidence that applicant trialed and failed all non- invasive conservative measures.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the IMR Final Determination was based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact regarding whether the applicant had trialed and failed all noninvasive conservative measures, warranting remand for a new IMR review.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ12704660 · 2022-06-13 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order on Appeal of Administrative Director's IMR Determination issued on March 22, 2022 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the Findings and Order on Appeal of Administrative Director's IMR Determination issued on March 22, 2022 is RESCINDED, and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:
The IMR determination applied the MTUS guidelines in a plainly erroneous manner based on ordinary knowledge and not expert opinion, failing to properly consider applicant's severe difficulty with activities of daily living and use of assistive device as homebound.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ13042596 · 2021-12-14 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5The opinion of the QME, Dr. Fujinaka, on the other hand, deals more directly with the issue of causation of applicant's right hand condition. Dr. Fujinaka reviewed numerous medical records, including those of Dr. Slikker. Dr. Fujinaka's opinion on causation is also much more consistent with applicant's unrebutted and credible testimony that she developed her right hand pain over a prolonged period of time while mopping 24 private hospital rooms, each with an attached bathroom over a workweek of 40 hours, with some overtime. Accordingly, I find that the medical evidence supports a finding of industrial injury.
The QME Dr. Fujinaka's opinion was found to be substantial medical evidence supporting industrial causation, consistent with applicant's credible testimony and unrebutted by other medical opinions.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ18126014 · 2025-05-29 · Fresno 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 found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final adverse decision.
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.

ACUMEN LAW
ACUMEN LAW, LLP
Acumen Law, LLP
ACUMEN LAW LLP
Acumen Law
ACUMEN LLP

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 →

What they litigate

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

How the appealed decisions came out

11 for the defense

9 for the applicant

3 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ14680333 · 2026-05-29 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.12Based on the record before us, we discern no reason to disturb our prior Decision and will therefore deny defendant's Petition.

The Board found that the medical opinions on apportionment lacked substantial evidence because they failed to provide adequate medical reasoning connecting the impairment to other factors, thus denying defendant's petition for reconsideration on apportionment.

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ14680333 · 2026-03-16 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.11Here treating physician Jahng's apportionment is clearly conclusory and does not set forth the reasoning in support of its conclusions. Moreover, even the doctor seems to doubt his own conclusions as evidenced by the question marks at the end of his findings: "30% related to the industrial injury and 70% to non-industrial factors, including pre-existing degenerative changes and normal wear and tear.???" (Exhibit 1, Kenneth Jahng, M.D., October 23, 2023, p. 5.) Dr. Jahng's statements in his supplemental report that "[i]t appeared that his February 19, 2021 injury was an aggravating injury of a pre-existing condition thus 30% industrial apportionment was given" do not rehabilitate the conclusory nature of his opinions. (Exhibit A, Kenneth Jahng, M.D., November 25, 2024, p. 5.) It is clear Dr. Jahng's opinions are not substantial evidence of apportionment.

The medical opinions on apportionment were conclusory and lacked substantial evidence, so apportionment was not found and the permanent disability award was amended to 59% without apportionment.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ19575878 · 2025-12-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on September 9, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in pertinent part that applicant, while employed by defendant during the cumulative period ending July 2024, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to the left shoulder and deferred findings as to additional body parts; that the date of injury pursuant to Labor Code section 5412 was the date of the agreed medical evaluator (AME)'s report; and that the left shoulder injury resulted in temporary disability.1

The Appeals Board found the medical evidence insufficient and not substantial to support the WCJ's findings on cumulative injury and date of injury, requiring further development of the record and updated expert medical opinion.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18722627 · 2025-10-14 · Long Beach District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Like the WCJ, we are not persuaded that applicant had the requisite knowledge sufficient to commence the running of the statute of limitations. The first medical opinion in the record finding an industrial injury is the report of Dr. Iseke dated February 9, 2024. (Joint 1, p. 41). While applicant may have noticed increasing aches and pains, we also observe that an employee's suspicion that an injury is work-related is typically insufficient to establish the date of injury on a cumulative injury without medical advice. (Johnson, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 473.) Thus, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that applicant was informed that his work caused his injury. (See County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant did not have sufficient knowledge of the industrial cumulative trauma injury until early 2024, when he saw an advertisement, and thus the claim was timely filed within the statute of limitations.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ18784544 · 2025-08-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

Determinative passage · p.6Thus, we are unable to determine if good cause exists at this juncture due to a lack of an adequate record. Therefore, we must rescind the Order and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. However, we note that since applicant claims injury to body parts outside the field of orthopedic medicine, it appears that additional QME panels will likely be required to fully address the claimed injury.

The WCJ failed to issue a Notice of Intention and did not make an adequate record to support the order for additional QME panels, violating due process and regulatory requirements.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11078470 · 2024-11-01 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues. This is our Decision After Reconsideration.

The WCJ must revisit whether the industrial injury to the right ankle and foot precluded applicant from fundraising, causing the program closure and job loss, and if so, whether applicant was temporarily disabled from February 1, 2018 and continuing, and whether wage loss was total or partial.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11969576 · 2023-12-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Turning to the merits of defendant's petition, defendant contends that applicant did not make a diligent good faith effort to obtain a PQME in internal medicine and that there was no evidence of a dispute to warrant a PQME in internal medicine.

Applicant exercised due diligence in requesting the additional PQME and there was a dispute necessitating the additional panel; defendant's denial of the referral and refusal to agree to the panel justified the order for the additional PQME.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ11969576 · 2023-09-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Here, the parties dispute the need for an additional QME panel in internal medicine so there is no joint agreement on the need for an additional evaluator in a different specialty. However, we conclude that good cause exists for a QME in internal medicine. Applicant claimed industrial injury to her arm, back, circulatory system, worsening of hypertension, and blood infection. (FA&O, Findings of Fact 1 & 2.) PTP Dr. Mahboubian recommended a specialty referral for an internal medicine evaluation and treatment. (Ex. 2, pp. 1-3; Ex. 3, pp. 1-2.) Although AME Dr. Newton was aware of applicant's other claimed injuries (Ex. X1, p. 3, 7-8; Ex. X3, pp. 3-5; Ex. X4, pp. 22-23), he failed to address these contested medical issues or advise the parties of any disputed medical issues outside of his scope of practice and area of clinical competency as required. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 35.5(c)(1), (d); Gill (Amarjeet) v. County of Fresno (2021) 86 Cal.Comp.Cases 609, 621 ["In the event that there are disputed medical issues in either claim that [QME] Dr. Lin is unable to address, it is incumbent on the QME to address those issues he is able to address and to advise the parties of any disputed medical issues outside of his scope of practice and area of clinical competency."].)

The orthopedic AME did not address all contested medical issues outside his specialty, and the PTP recommended internal medicine evaluation; good cause exists for an additional QME panel in internal medicine to resolve disputed medical issues.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ4668467 · 2023-05-25 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7The sole issue for determination is whether there is a plainly erroneous mistake of fact in the February 2, 2022 Independent Medical Review (IMR) Final Determination. The IMR Determination upheld the December 20, 2021 Utilization Review (UR) Denial (Exh. C) of a right shoulder platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections to applicant's right shoulder. Applicant contends that there is a factual dispute in that there is evidence that applicant trialed and failed all non- invasive conservative measures.

The WCJ and WCAB found that the IMR Final Determination was based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact regarding whether the applicant had trialed and failed all noninvasive conservative measures, warranting remand for a new IMR review.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ12704660 · 2022-06-13 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.10For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order on Appeal of Administrative Director's IMR Determination issued on March 22, 2022 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the Findings and Order on Appeal of Administrative Director's IMR Determination issued on March 22, 2022 is RESCINDED, and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:

The IMR determination applied the MTUS guidelines in a plainly erroneous manner based on ordinary knowledge and not expert opinion, failing to properly consider applicant's severe difficulty with activities of daily living and use of assistive device as homebound.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ13042596 · 2021-12-14 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5The opinion of the QME, Dr. Fujinaka, on the other hand, deals more directly with the issue of causation of applicant's right hand condition. Dr. Fujinaka reviewed numerous medical records, including those of Dr. Slikker. Dr. Fujinaka's opinion on causation is also much more consistent with applicant's unrebutted and credible testimony that she developed her right hand pain over a prolonged period of time while mopping 24 private hospital rooms, each with an attached bathroom over a workweek of 40 hours, with some overtime. Accordingly, I find that the medical evidence supports a finding of industrial injury.

The QME Dr. Fujinaka's opinion was found to be substantial medical evidence supporting industrial causation, consistent with applicant's credible testimony and unrebutted by other medical opinions.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ18126014 · 2025-05-29 · Fresno 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 found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →