California WCABLaw firm
Benjumea & Associates
Benjumea & Associates is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at San Diego, then Anaheim.
- Decisions
- 6
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 2
- District offices
- 5
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 6 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.
- ADJ11525409 · 2024-04-19 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial injury on August 18, 2017, and that the injury was presumed industrial pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5402(b). The WCJ further sustained applicant's objection to the QME's reporting and excluded it from coming into evidence.
The presumption of compensability was affirmed because the defendant failed to rebut it with timely evidence, and the QME reports were excluded from evidence due to procedural issues.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12973118 · 2023-05-17 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, applicant's primary treating physician found that there is no treatment needed at this time but, "if the patient is exposed again to mold and she has flare up of various symptoms," she may require additional doctor visits. (Exh.1, August 12, 2020, Ronald Zlotolow M.D., Primary Treating Physician Report, p. 5.) In addition, the panel qualified medical evaluator recommended applicant be provided with an air purifier on an industrial basis.3 (Exh. A, June 10, 2020, Marc Meth, M.D., Panel Qualified Medical Evaluation, p. 11.) These reports, taken together, establish that applicant may require future medical care as a result of her industrial injuries. Defendant is required to provide medical treatment that complies with Section 4600. Applicant need not establish that she will certainly need future medical care for an award of future medical care to issue. It is sufficient that there is substantial medical evidence that future medical care may be needed.
Substantial medical evidence showed applicant may require future medical care, including PTP and QME reports recommending possible future treatment and an air purifier.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ13762384 · 2022-08-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5No. It is clear from the evidence presented that applicant was performing his usual and customary work duties on the employer's premises at the time he sustained injury on 9/16/20.
Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof that applicant's injury was caused by intoxication; no evidence that applicant was impaired at work or that intoxication caused the injury.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ13824090 · 2026-04-03 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant, Michael Blott, D.C., has filed a petition for removal from the order of continuance issued on December 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Lien claimant argues that the matter should proceed to trial.
The petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the issue raised was resolved by the WCJ's order setting the matter for trial.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ4211152 · 2022-08-22 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration are DISMISSED.
The March 28, 2022 petition failed to allege aggrievement; the June 23, 2022 petition was moot due to the amended award, and was also illegible and skeletal.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ9895926 · 2021-07-06 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on May 18, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the petition for removal, leading to dismissal.
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.
- BENJUMEA & ASSOCIATES
- BENJUMEA & ASSOCIATES, APC
- BENJUMEA AND ASSOCIATES
- Benjumea & Associates
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.