California WCABLaw firm

Cipolla, Calaba, Marrone & Wollman

Cipolla, Calaba, Marrone & Wollman is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2024. The disputes are AOE/COE (3). They were heard most often at Long Beach, then Los Angeles.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2021–2024
Issues disputed: 1
District offices: 5

What they litigate

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

AOE/COE3

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

Long Beach 2
Los Angeles 2
Pomona 1
Santa Ana 1
Van Nuys 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.

ADJ14362966 · 2023-11-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 14, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that Applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of COVID-19; and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his injury claim.
The WCJ's original finding that the applicant did not sustain a COVID-19 injury AOE/COE was rescinded because the QME's opinion was found speculative and lacking scientific basis, warranting further proceedings including deposition of the QME.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12469521 · 2022-11-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The orthopedic QME Dr. Fleming conducted a thorough evaluation of applicant and explained the rationale for his conclusions based on his objective examination and applicant's history as detailed in the medical records. Dr. Truong's conclusions are based on an inaccurate history regarding applicant's job duties while employed by defendant. Dr. Truong also did not review any medical records. We agree with the WCJ that the orthopedic QME Dr. Fleming's reporting is more persuasive than Dr. Truong's and constitutes substantial evidence that applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE to the orthopedic parts pled.
The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE based on the persuasive orthopedic QME report and the psychological QME report, as well as credibility determinations favoring the defense witnesses.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ14742800 · 2024-11-04 · Santa Ana 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11700609 · 2022-07-29 · Los Angeles 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 seeks reconsideration of a non-final order and will be dismissed. Instead, the petition will be treated solely as a petition for removal and we will grant removal.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the order was interlocutory and not a final order, thus not subject to reconsideration; the petition was treated as a petition for removal and granted to rescind the order and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10871012 · 2021-06-18 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ's report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the Petition for Disqualification as untimely pursuant to Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) Rule 10960.
The petition was dismissed as untimely under WCAB Rule 10960, but the WCJ's report on the merits was adopted and incorporated by the panel.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12492733 · 2021-05-25 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal in response to the Order taking the matter off calendar issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 8, 2021, wherein the WCJ stated that additional reporting is necessary because the report from the Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) did not address injury to all of the body parts alleged.
The Appeals Board granted removal because the WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was based on an incomplete record, lacking a QME report addressing all alleged body parts, thus prejudicing the defendant and requiring further proceedings.
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.

Cipolla, Calaba, Marrone & Wollman
Cipolla, Calaba, Wollman & Bhatti
CIPOLLA, CALABA, WOLLMAN & BHATTI
Cipolla Calaba Wollman & Bhatti
Cipolla, Calaba & Wollman
CIPOLLA, CALABA & WOLLMAN
Cipolla Calaba

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 →

How the appealed decisions 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.

ADJ14362966 · 2023-11-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 14, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that Applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of COVID-19; and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his injury claim.

The WCJ's original finding that the applicant did not sustain a COVID-19 injury AOE/COE was rescinded because the QME's opinion was found speculative and lacking scientific basis, warranting further proceedings including deposition of the QME.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12469521 · 2022-11-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The orthopedic QME Dr. Fleming conducted a thorough evaluation of applicant and explained the rationale for his conclusions based on his objective examination and applicant's history as detailed in the medical records. Dr. Truong's conclusions are based on an inaccurate history regarding applicant's job duties while employed by defendant. Dr. Truong also did not review any medical records. We agree with the WCJ that the orthopedic QME Dr. Fleming's reporting is more persuasive than Dr. Truong's and constitutes substantial evidence that applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE to the orthopedic parts pled.

The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE based on the persuasive orthopedic QME report and the psychological QME report, as well as credibility determinations favoring the defense witnesses.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ14742800 · 2024-11-04 · Santa Ana 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11700609 · 2022-07-29 · Los Angeles 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 seeks reconsideration of a non-final order and will be dismissed. Instead, the petition will be treated solely as a petition for removal and we will grant removal.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the order was interlocutory and not a final order, thus not subject to reconsideration; the petition was treated as a petition for removal and granted to rescind the order and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10871012 · 2021-06-18 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ's report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the Petition for Disqualification as untimely pursuant to Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) Rule 10960.

The petition was dismissed as untimely under WCAB Rule 10960, but the WCJ's report on the merits was adopted and incorporated by the panel.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12492733 · 2021-05-25 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal in response to the Order taking the matter off calendar issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 8, 2021, wherein the WCJ stated that additional reporting is necessary because the report from the Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) did not address injury to all of the body parts alleged.

The Appeals Board granted removal because the WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was based on an incomplete record, lacking a QME report addressing all alleged body parts, thus prejudicing the defendant and requiring further proceedings.

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.

Cipolla, Calaba, Marrone & Wollman

Cipolla, Calaba, Wollman & Bhatti

CIPOLLA, CALABA, WOLLMAN & BHATTI

Cipolla Calaba Wollman & Bhatti

Cipolla, Calaba & Wollman

CIPOLLA, CALABA & WOLLMAN

Cipolla Calaba