Altman & Blitstein

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• Liens1
• Permanent disability rating1
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 3
• Marina del Rey 2
• Oxnard 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.

• 5 for the defense
• 1 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

• ADJ10900510 · 2024-01-29 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of January 27, 2021, the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, while employed as an auto mechanic during the period January 28, 1987 through April 26, 2017, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral hips, bilateral hands, bilateral wrists, hypertension, upper gastrointestinal system, psyche, headaches, and hearing loss, causing permanent disability of 89%. The WCJ issued this finding of 89% permanent disability after accounting for apportionment to non-industrial factors, based on the WCJ's accompanying finding that there is "legal and valid apportionment of the impairments to applicant's lumbar spine, cervical spine, hypertension, upper gastrointestinal system, and headaches."

  The WCAB found that the vocational expert's opinion was not substantial evidence to rebut the medical apportionment, which was stipulated by the parties as legal and valid. The WCJ's finding of 89% permanent disability after apportionment was affirmed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14929271 · 2022-09-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Defendant argues that Applicant simply could not keep his story straight and is not credible. The trial court is the "sole judge" of witness credibility. David v. Kahn, 7 Cal.App.3d. 868, 874. The fact finders determination of the veracity of a witness is final. People v. Bobeda, 143 Cal.App.2d. 496, 500. Credibility determinations thus are subject to extremely deferential review. La Jolla Casa De Manana v. Hopkins, 98 Cal.App.2d 339, 345-346. In workers' compensation, the trier of fact must weigh all the evidence, including testimony and its credibility, to determine whether there is a sufficient record based upon which to make a finding. See generally Garza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 3 Cal.3d 312. The credibility determinations of the workers' compensation judge are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence because the judge has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and weigh their statements with their manner on the stand. Id. at 319.

  The WCJ found the Applicant credible despite some inconsistencies and communication difficulties, and found Dr. Smith's medical report substantial evidence supporting industrial injury. The WCJ adopted the report and denied the Petition for Reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ7904460 · 2022-04-11 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Orders of January 14, 2022 wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury while employed as a clinical laboratory scientist during a cumulative period ending on March 15, 2011. The WCJ thus ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his workers' compensation claim. As relevant to the instant Petition for Reconsideration, in this matter, applicant claimed that he sustained a cumulative injury in the form of hypertension and to the psyche. Applicant argued that an industrial hypertension injury contributed to a subsequent stroke.

  The WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to prove industrial injury in hypertension or stroke is supported by the persuasive opinion of Dr. Lineback, who found the hypertension and stroke nonindustrial, outweighing Dr. Lipper's contrary opinion.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15351318 · 2021-12-27 · Marina del Rey District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.16After reviewing the case law and expert testimony, the Arbitrator is of the opinion the WCAB does have jurisdiction to consider the conduct of the attorney in determining the Award of a fee or the division of the fee.

  The Arbitrator found that the majority of the attorney fee should be awarded to the present attorney based on the amount of work done, the contested nature of the case, and the misconduct of the prior attorney, rejecting the prior attorney's claims for a greater fee.

  Official decision · page 16 →
• ADJ11144910 · 2021-09-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5In this case, the reporting from both the PQME and applicant's primary treating physician are not substantial medical evidence on the issue of whether the disputed body parts were injured. In his Report, the WCJ noted that "None of the three Ganjianpour reports in evidence indicate a review of records except a single report of PQME Washington. Dr. Washington,...on the other hand has an exhaustive review of records." (Report p. 5.) We agree with the WCJ that Dr. Ganjianpour should have memorialized the documents he reviewed and discussed any documents he relied on in forming his opinions.

  The WCAB found that the medical evidence from both the PQME and the primary treating physician was not substantial medical evidence on whether the disputed body parts (neck and back) were injured, due to deficiencies in the reports, including lack of detailed job duty analysis and incomplete record review, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10499441 · 2022-10-11 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The parties appeared before the presiding WCJ on August 23, 2022, at which time the WCJ issued the disputed Order. The hearing set for August 29, 2022 proceeded and the matter was taken off calendar per the parties' joint request. Therefore, applicant's Petition for Removal now appears to be moot.

  The petition was dismissed as moot because the hearing set for the matter proceeded and was taken off calendar per the parties' joint request.

  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.

• ALTMAN & BLITSTEIN
• Altman & Blitstein
• Altman Blitstein & Wayne

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.