California WCABLaw firm

CBE Law Group

CBE Law Group is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Sanctions under Labor Code §5813 (2), AOE/COE (1) and Apportionment (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Glass Law Group (1).

Decisions: 8
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 7
District offices: 7

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 of 8 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

4 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

Van Nuys 2
Anaheim 1
Long Beach 1
Los Angeles 1
Marina del Rey 1
San Bernardino 1
Santa Barbara 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 defense
3 for the applicant
1 returned for more record

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ17108250 · 2026-05-19 · San Bernardino District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.12In light of the foregoing, we do not believe there is substantial evidence to justify the WCJ's decision to issue sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs.
The WCAB found no substantial evidence to justify the WCJ's imposition of sanctions and attorney's fees and noted the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over some defendants at the time of the F&O.
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ13475083 · 2025-02-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Here, the parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum wage earner on March 11, 2024, after the parties were ordered to develop the record on applicant's earnings. (Minutes of Hearting dated March 11, 2024, p. 2:7.) Although the issue of earnings was still an issue for trial, as the WCJ points out (Report, p. 7), there is no record that defendant moved to be relieved from such stipulation and section 5702 does not permit the WCJ to find contrary to the stipulation absent a hearing and an opportunity for the parties to be heard on this issue. The record does not show a hearing or trial past March 11, 2024. Instead, the record is full of petitions for reconsideration followed by multiple orders vacating and amending Findings and Awards, with the same judicial determination that applicant is not a maximum earner and only clerical changes on the amount of applicant's earnings. This is not permitted absent a full hearing on why the stipulation should be set aside. More importantly, the record does not show that defendant sought to set aside the stipulation.
The parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum earner, and the WCAB held that the stipulation could not be set aside without a hearing, so the finding of maximum earnings was affirmed.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11438423 · 2022-06-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and lien claimant Casa Colina seek reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 25, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a teacher on July 30, 2018, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his brain and head; (2) applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that Patterson v. The Oaks Farms, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910, applies to this matter; and (3) applicant's treatment requests must be in the form of requests for authorization (RFAs), which are subject to utilization review (UR) determinations and appealable only through independent medical review (IMR).
The Board found that the applicant's RFAs sought continued inpatient treatment previously authorized and thus are not subject to UR without substantial medical evidence of a change in condition; the Board rescinded the WCJ's prior order and substituted findings in favor of the applicant for continued treatment until a change is established and a care plan agreed upon.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9997985 · 2025-11-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7First, we emphasize that defendant's Second Amended Petition lacked a valid proof of service. Next, the Second Amended Petition, the NIT, and the resulting Order imposing sanctions were served at an incorrect address for applicant's attorneys so that there was no valid service. Thus, the NIT was void ab initio, and the Order based on the NIT is void as well.
The WCJ's Order Imposing Sanctions was based on defective service and lack of evidentiary record, violating due process, so the Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the sanctions order.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ11148904 · 2023-01-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's decision includes a finding regarding a threshold issue. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.
The WCJ's decision included a threshold issue, making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but the petition only challenged an interlocutory finding. The Board applied the removal standard and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ10121279 · 2022-09-06 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition is untimely and must be dismissed.
The petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ decision was served, making it untimely and jurisdictionally barred.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14719401 · 2022-06-03 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, 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.
Petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
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.

CBE LAW GROUP
CBE Law Group
CBE LAW

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 →

CBE Law Group

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the defense

3 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ17108250 · 2026-05-19 · San Bernardino District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.12In light of the foregoing, we do not believe there is substantial evidence to justify the WCJ's decision to issue sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs.

The WCAB found no substantial evidence to justify the WCJ's imposition of sanctions and attorney's fees and noted the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over some defendants at the time of the F&O.

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ13475083 · 2025-02-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Here, the parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum wage earner on March 11, 2024, after the parties were ordered to develop the record on applicant's earnings. (Minutes of Hearting dated March 11, 2024, p. 2:7.) Although the issue of earnings was still an issue for trial, as the WCJ points out (Report, p. 7), there is no record that defendant moved to be relieved from such stipulation and section 5702 does not permit the WCJ to find contrary to the stipulation absent a hearing and an opportunity for the parties to be heard on this issue. The record does not show a hearing or trial past March 11, 2024. Instead, the record is full of petitions for reconsideration followed by multiple orders vacating and amending Findings and Awards, with the same judicial determination that applicant is not a maximum earner and only clerical changes on the amount of applicant's earnings. This is not permitted absent a full hearing on why the stipulation should be set aside. More importantly, the record does not show that defendant sought to set aside the stipulation.

The parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum earner, and the WCAB held that the stipulation could not be set aside without a hearing, so the finding of maximum earnings was affirmed.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11438423 · 2022-06-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and lien claimant Casa Colina seek reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 25, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a teacher on July 30, 2018, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his brain and head; (2) applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that Patterson v. The Oaks Farms, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910, applies to this matter; and (3) applicant's treatment requests must be in the form of requests for authorization (RFAs), which are subject to utilization review (UR) determinations and appealable only through independent medical review (IMR).

The Board found that the applicant's RFAs sought continued inpatient treatment previously authorized and thus are not subject to UR without substantial medical evidence of a change in condition; the Board rescinded the WCJ's prior order and substituted findings in favor of the applicant for continued treatment until a change is established and a care plan agreed upon.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9997985 · 2025-11-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7First, we emphasize that defendant's Second Amended Petition lacked a valid proof of service. Next, the Second Amended Petition, the NIT, and the resulting Order imposing sanctions were served at an incorrect address for applicant's attorneys so that there was no valid service. Thus, the NIT was void ab initio, and the Order based on the NIT is void as well.

The WCJ's Order Imposing Sanctions was based on defective service and lack of evidentiary record, violating due process, so the Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the sanctions order.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ11148904 · 2023-01-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's decision includes a finding regarding a threshold issue. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.

The WCJ's decision included a threshold issue, making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but the petition only challenged an interlocutory finding. The Board applied the removal standard and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ10121279 · 2022-09-06 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition is untimely and must be dismissed.

The petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ decision was served, making it untimely and jurisdictionally barred.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14719401 · 2022-06-03 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, 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.

Petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →