Asvar Law

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 12
• Santa Ana 2
• Anaheim 1
• Long Beach 1
• Oakland 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.

• 10 for the applicant
• 7 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 17 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.

• ADJ10540221 · 2026-01-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8submitted on March 21, 2025 established the need for expedited review, or that any such determination was communicated to the prescribing physician within 72 hours of defendant's receipt of the RFA. As a result, defendant's March 26, 2025 UR decision was untimely, and the WCAB is vested with jurisdiction over the underlying medical treatment dispute. (Dubon v. World Restoration (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298 [2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 131].) Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the F&O, substitute new Findings of Fact that defendant's March 26, 2025 UR determination was untimely, and return this matter to the WCJ for determination of whether applicant has met the burden of establishing that the requested medical treatment is medically necessary under applicable medical treatment utilization schedule and recommended guidelines. (Lab. Code, § 4604.5; 5307.27 et seq.)

  The WCAB found that the defendant's March 26, 2025 UR determination was untimely because no medical professional reviewed the expedited request within the required 72-hour timeframe, thus vesting jurisdiction in the WCAB to determine medical necessity.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ7445107 · 2025-10-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.16Therefore, we hold en banc that: 1. All en banc decisions are binding on panels of the Appeals Board and the WCJs, and the

  The WCAB en banc held that all en banc decisions, including Coldiron I and II, are binding and require disclosure of all entities liable for payment and all insurance policies impacting liability, and that WCAB Rule 10390 does not supersede these requirements.

  Official decision · page 16 →
• ADJ1405392 · 2025-05-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8On March 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated March 15, 2025, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Findings of Fact, Award & Order dated February 25, 2025. The Defendant contends that the undersigned WCJ erred in admitting the neuropsychological consultative reports of Fernando Gonzalez, Ph.D., dated June 1, 2023 and October 16, 2024. In addition, the Defendant contends that Dr. Gonzalez's reporting failed to constitute substantial medical evidence, including, but not limited to, his alleged lack of competence, the substance of his opinions, and his adding versus using the combined values chart Table 13-8 impairment rating in the AMA Guides and global assessment of function score to achieve permanent total disability. Finally, the Defendant contends that Labor Code § 4660.1(c) bars any psychiatric permanent disability for the Applicant's injury.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found that Dr. Gonzalez's consultative medical reports were properly admitted and constituted substantial medical evidence based on adequate examination, history, and reasonable medical probability.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ18090375 · 2024-10-11 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits, the Opinion and Decision and the Report explain why the March 22, 2024 report of primary treating physician Henry Koh, M.D. meets the criteria for expedited review pursuant to Labor Code section 4610(i)(3) and Administrative Rule 9792.9.1(c)(4) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.9.1, subd. (c)(4).) The Petition appears to argue that the criteria was not met because Dr. Koh did not use the specific language of the statute and/or regulation in explaining why expedited review was necessary. However, the statute and regulation only require that the request or accompanying report document the need for expedited review, not that any specific language be utilized or that the substantiation occur in any specific place of the request or accompanying medical report. Accordingly, we will deny defendant's Petition for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and Report quoted below. We have omitted the discussion in the Report of applicant's case manager's letter of May 6, 2024 as evidence that applicant's request for expedited review was properly supported. Since this letter was drafted after the submission of the RFA, and was not submitted to the defendant as part of the UR process, it cannot be a basis for stating that the request for expedited review was proper. However, Dr. Koh's report itself contains the basis for the necessity of expedited review.

  The WCAB found that the Request for Authorization (RFA) for expedited utilization review was timely submitted and met the criteria for expedited review due to the applicant's serious traumatic brain injury and associated impairments posing an imminent and serious threat to health. The UR decision was untimely, and the requested supported living program was reasonably required medical treatment. Therefore, the defendant's petition contesting the timeliness and medical necessity was denied.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9671636 · 2022-05-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of the First Amended Order Imposing Sanctions and Costs Against Asvar Law, Christopher Asvar and Theresia Falter issued on February 11, 2022 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that First Amended Order Imposing Sanctions and Costs Against Asvar Law, Christopher Asvar and Theresia Falter issued on February 11, 2022 is RESCINDED and that this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The Board found that the sanctions order was issued without proper due process and that the attorneys' right to discovery was effectively denied. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the sanctions order, and returned the matter for further proceedings to develop the record on sanctions issues.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ9671636 · 2022-01-12 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1For the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree that the opinions of Roger Bertoldi, M.D., and Martin Ross, Ph.D., are substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied. To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion "must be predicated on reasonable medical probability." (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases

  The WCJ properly relied on substantial medical evidence from Dr. Bertoldi and Dr. Ross, who found the applicant permanently totally disabled due to brain injury under Labor Code 4662(a)(4). The WCJ's decision complied with Labor Code 4061(i) and Fitzpatrick precedent, and the Board denied reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7932198 · 2021-07-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Supplemental Findings of Fact and Award Re Home Healthcare (F&A) issued on October 26, 2020,1 wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in pertinent part that (1) applicant requires home healthcare of eighteen hours per day, seven days per week, consisting of ten hours of Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) care and eight hours of Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) care per day; (2) these services are to be provided by applicant's spouse, Theresa the applicant, a registered nurse; (3) the most appropriate rates of reimbursement for the applicant's services are the rates which defendant would otherwise pay a third party health care services provider; and (4) the appropriate reimbursement rates of reimbursement are $50.00 per hour for LVN care and $30.00 per hour for CNA care.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant requires 18 hours per day of home healthcare provided by his spouse at rates equivalent to those paid to outside agencies, and that defendant's arguments to reduce hours or rates lacked merit due to the medical necessity and stipulations.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ6488980 · 2025-10-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration. We will also deny the petition to the extent it seeks removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's decision was not final and only resolved an intermediate procedural issue; the petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ7445107 · 2025-10-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1(En Banc) We previously granted reconsideration in order to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (En Banc).1 To secure uniformity of decisions in the future, the Chair of the Appeals Board, upon a unanimous vote of its members, assigned this case to the Appeals Board as a whole for an en banc decision.2 (Lab. Code, § 115.) Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 19, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that in response to applicant's discovery request, defendant was only required to comply with WCAB Rule 10390 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10390) and disclose the name of the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier. Applicant contends that the WCJ's conclusion that WCAB Rule 10390 only requires that a defendant disclose the name of its insurance carrier was too narrow, and that the en banc

  The en banc Appeals Board held that defendants must comply with WCAB Rule 10390 and the binding en banc decisions in Coldiron I and II requiring disclosure of entities liable for payment and insurance policies impacting liability, and that the WCJ's prior conclusion that Rule 10390 superseded Coldiron was incorrect.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15279918 · 2025-08-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on June 5, 2025, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9709184 · 2025-03-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition for Disqualification.

  The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish grounds for disqualification under the cited laws and rules.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9223005 · 2024-05-10 · Long Beach District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Accordingly, we will dismiss applicant's Petition as one seeking reconsideration. We will grant the Petition as one seeking removal, and as our decision after removal, amend Finding of Fact No. 1 to reflect that the sharing of applicant's records, notes, and raw testing results maintained by Dr. Gonzalez with persons other than Behrooz Bernous, Ph.D., constituted a breach of the July 22, 2022 discovery stipulation.

  The WCJ initially found no breach, but the WCAB after removal found that sharing applicant's medical information with persons other than Behrooz Bernous, Ph.D., violated the July 22, 2022 stipulation based on the plain language of the agreement and privacy considerations.

  Official decision · page 8 →

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.

• ASVAR LAW
• ASVAR LAW, PC
• Asvar Law
• ASVAR LAW, P.C.
• Asvar Law, P.C.
• ASVAR LAW,P.C.

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.